On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 06:39 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 03:49:38PM +0500, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote: > > On 19.12.2018 23:32, Allan Jude wrote: > > > The biggest thing to remember is that this is still OpenZFS, and still > > > run by the same developers as it has been. We are just commonizing on > > > the repo that has the most features integrated into it. > > > > Does it mean that ZoF and thus FreeBSD will lose NFSv4 ACLs because > > there is no such thing in ZoL? > +1. I'm also worried if this would bring more Linuxish bits into our > kernel (cf. LinuxKPI). Also, I thought that ZFS was never really native > to Linux but implemented through SPL (Solaris Porting Layer), and Linux' > VFS is not ARC-aware unlike Solaris and FreeBSD. > There is no LinuxKPI involved here. Please re-read Allan’s comments on directory structuring. No open source OS supporting ZFS has a VM subsystem that is integrated with the ARC. The limited feedback that the ARC has from FreeBSD’s VM will remain unchanged. > It would be quite upsetting to see ZFS as we know it in FreeBSD become > pessimized because of those things. :-( > ZFS will be no more pessimized than it currently is. Talk to mjg some time about ZFS some time, there are ... scaling issues in its locking strategies. Apart from that FreeBSD’s VFS itself has serious scaling. None of this will get better or worse when we change the vendor repo we use for integrating changes. -MReceived on Thu Dec 20 2018 - 20:58:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:19 UTC