On 20/12/2018 11:03, Bob Bishop wrote: > Hi, > >> On 19 Dec 2018, at 23:16, Matthew Macy <mmacy_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 15:11 Steven Hartland <killing_at_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 SteveReceived on Thu Dec 20 2018 - 10:57:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:19 UTC