News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD by ggm on Wednesday December 19, 2018 @11:00PM (#18722398)
As a long-time BSD user (since 1982) this both saddens and heartens me. It saddens me, that the core development path in BSD was not able to sustain being the "reference" model for a wider community. There is no point pretending you can, when nobody else wants to follow that model.

The heartening moment, is that linux and BSD should share code when they can, because its sensiblet to avoid pointless fork. Pointful fork, (and I exclude licence terms mostly) is something we have to deal with. Pointless forking is just a royal pain.

An outcome of this should be that I get more guarantee a ZVOL export/import cycle across Linux/BSD (which btw I have now done about 10 times on 10TB ZFS filesystems) will work with no awkward binary consequence to flag/version mismatch which came about because of two codebases: version mismatch because one was "old" and one is "new" is a different thing.

Re:The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD by gh02t on Wednesday December 19, 2018 @11:22PM (#18722487)
> It saddens me, that the core development path in BSD was not able to sustain being the "reference" model for a wider community.

Could you explain? FreeBSD was not the reference implementation of ZFS, illumos was. ZoL is still tied up in the OpenZFS project (as are illumos and FreeBSD), this is more a matter of rebasing onto the subproject where more development is occurring. As it was, FreeBSD's implementation was already using a Solaris/illumos compatibility shim, and it sounds like switching isn't that much work.

Re:The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD by ggm on Thursday December 20, 2018 @12:13AM (#18722666)
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought the input back into Linux ZFS grew out of the (Free)BSD work. If its two independent OS trees both referring upstream to Illumos, its a minor moment.

What does the solaris compatibility shim do in the end, which couldn't be done direct in the codebase? I don't like shims, it feels like the linux compatibility ABI moment where something gets added and the shim drifts, and then you can't do eg DRI any more because "they changed how it worked and we didn't catch up"

But, thanks for the cluestick hit. If this is just flavour of ice-cream from the same truck, I'm less worried.

Re:The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD by simcop2387 on Thursday December 20, 2018 @01:09AM (#18722835)
The shim, as I understand it, for linux is there to both handle some licensing differences and to also translate between Linux's io subsystem which isn't going to be turned into Solaris' nor will ZFS's be turned into Linux's IO subsystem directly. They're basically compatible but have different ways of doing things so it results in needing a shim to handle things.
Re:The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD by gh02t on Thursday December 20, 2018 @11:25AM (#18726240)
I don't know a lot about it, but my understanding is that the shim is pretty thin, there to translate some slightly different syscall conventions. Compatibility shims done well (minimal to no overhead) can be very beneficial, allowing separate projects to share more code directly.

On a separate note, illumos is a really cool project. I hope this transition (and apparent reduced activity in their development on ZFS) is not a symptom of the project losing momentum. My first experiences with a computer were on SunOS and early Solaris, and illumos is the the [open source] heir to that throne.