The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

rb at rb at
Thu Dec 20 13:04:58 UTC 2018

> On 20 Dec 2018, at 11:58, Steven Hartland <killing at> wrote:
> On 20/12/2018 11:03, Bob Bishop wrote:
>> Hi,
>>> On 19 Dec 2018, at 23:16, Matthew Macy <mmacy at> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 15:11 Steven Hartland <killing at>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Sorry been off for a few weeks so must have missed that, please do prod me
>>>> on again if you don’t see any response to anything not just this. Like many
>>>> others I get so may emails across so many lists it’s more than likely I
>>>> just missed it.
>>>> That said would you say that with the right support we can make progress
>>>> on the this prior to the port? I have to ask as the alternative version has
>>>> been on the cusp for many years now so it’s feels more like a distant
>>>> memory than something that may happen, no disrespect to anyone involved, as
>>>> I know all too well how hard it can be to get something like this over the
>>>> line, especially when people have competing priorities.
>>> I am hoping that it's sufficiently important to FreeBSD ZFS developers that
>>> they'll give the PR the attention it needs so that it can be merged before
>>> summer. My understanding is that it's mostly suffered from neglect. TRIM is
>>> most important to FreeBSD and it already had its own implementation.
>> Please correct me if I’m wrong but this looks a lot less mature than FreeBSD’s existing TRIM support for ZFS which we’ve had in production for six years.
>> What is the rationale here? I’m concerned that it looks like an opportunity for mighty regressions.
> This is the case, but overall this solution is thought to be a better approach.
> With anything like this there is always a risk, so we all need a concerted effort to get to one solution.

Not sure what I can contribute, but I can certainly put a box up for testing when there’s something to test.

>     Regards
>     Steve

Bob Bishop
rb at

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list