From nobody Thu Feb 29 12:00:19 2024 X-Original-To: questions@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TlqYj70B5z5C2Xj for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:00:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tml@seiruote.it) Received: from smtpcmd02102.aruba.it (smtpcmd02102.aruba.it [62.149.158.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtpdh02.ad.aruba.it", Issuer "Actalis Organization Validated Server CA G3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TlqYg2Tl8z486t for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:00:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tml@seiruote.it) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=seiruote.it header.s=a1 header.b=fna+97ok; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=seiruote.it; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of tml@seiruote.it designates 62.149.158.102 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=tml@seiruote.it Received: from [192.168.20.100] ([92.246.125.243]) by Aruba Outgoing Smtp with ESMTPSA id ff5nrvxVxy0rUff5nrUtPj; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:00:51 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=seiruote.it; s=a1; t=1709208051; bh=458E6SNJYEv8MOSWpuQOwDoQ1+owzmHqXDV14I2zZUc=; h=Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; b=fna+97okzWBZSVZc2dHy04n22HqYCqpTBYS2zv4VIJs96Wt+prMxcKU5QO+kDFgoa kkVv/ujjJTFBhqPTGb1oL/Q5R3jTFEo2MOadnaWGWsVrEynrHEOdJZAk2/l2heGq6j snAjDGoEZNqLSVFplRr0uc4B8Dnt6K+Kcl58VttwdzPCQyqTfrelcPT8ty+KBUsNQf 5Q7skMvfoxa655a0pcpyZY27K5IpXGQw0/y6YP8InSWT9FYASatKEzkG39QpNhonxh nKcp6/grTtOUItNcB34Lp2rXSxazCZUn5SyfiBB1aJOsa6RAxrG+jmM8iUsJj+N/1M 6q69aESrGpLeg== Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:00:19 +0100 List-Id: User questions List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: FreeBSD 13.2R and OpenZFS bug #15933 Content-Language: it To: questions@freebsd.org References: <27dc6dbd-2ca0-4385-8281-e6bde086bd13@holgerdanske.com> <87eb268e-9429-414a-a3e6-d2e93eaa2119@holgerdanske.com> From: tetrosalame In-Reply-To: <87eb268e-9429-414a-a3e6-d2e93eaa2119@holgerdanske.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfLJhQ2SvvhlQ4PsEDwRLmHx9lz+Mnhe44WpgHfVV6RGJR53/gVDLqWnEtwEmETfP4vAWQJy4kHV7v4qtjecjflMBNsjo8lVVjOIey8SQN25+TGNE/+Y6 W2s2TeGlt8l1kdZoEkOGAzo6eBR4yBNV6zbLkrmdEBwKrZjicaZD5wmjEZxeBv7BMqAB0mcIwpbRKw== X-Spamd-Bar: --- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.96 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.965]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[seiruote.it,none]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:62.149.158.0/24]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[seiruote.it:s=a1]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(-0.10)[62.149.158.102:from]; ONCE_RECEIVED(0.10)[]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:31034, ipnet:62.149.128.0/19, country:IT]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[questions@freebsd.org]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[62.149.158.102:from]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[seiruote.it:+] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TlqYg2Tl8z486t Il 29/02/2024 03:08, David Christensen ha scritto: > > So, it appears FreeBSD 12.4R uses Illumos code and FreeBSD 13.2R uses > OpenZFS code with some Illumos remnants. > Just replying to a random message of this thread. Yes, ZFS code contained in 12 branch is Illumos based, 13 and forth is OpenZFS (ZOL) based. I still run two fileservers on FreeBSD 12-STABLE (root on UFS and data on ZFS) for the same reasons as yours and I think I'll migrate them to full UFS on a supported release. For now. I'm not in position to say anything about code quality, nor I want to criticize the commendable efforts that OpenZFS and FreeBSD developers put in that project. Maybe, mine (ours?) is just a *perception* problem. It seems to me that OpenZFS shows a different "attitude" from what FreeBSD users are used to, more akin to the Linux way of doing things: hurry-up/cool-feature-of-the-month/put-john's-patch-on-mary's-code-but-after-joedeveloper-hack vs slow/steady/dependable. That's what drove me away from Linux to the BSD world about 25 years ago. So maybe it's not the case, but (several) nasty bugs in filesystem code scare me to my bones: in FreeBSD land, we're just not used to them :)) FreeBSD developers' reaction was great, bugs were fixed and communication was managed very professionally, but OpenZFS changes so fast that I can't help but ask myself: what's next? -- f