On 20/12/2018 11:03, Bob Bishop wrote:
Hi,
On 19 Dec 2018, at 23:16, Matthew Macy <mm...@freebsd.org> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 15:11 Steven Hartland <kill...@multiplay.co.uk>
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.
https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/pull/5925
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.
Regards
Steve
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
