From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 24926 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2021 18:42:06 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 4 Feb 2021 18:42:06 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 71B329CA3C; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 04:41:59 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E279C9FD; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 04:41:34 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=iitbombay-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@iitbombay-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="BYu/09tk"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id B0CDF9C9FD; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 04:41:30 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ot1-f54.google.com (mail-ot1-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FCD79C9F7 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 04:41:25 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ot1-f54.google.com with SMTP id o12so4366909ote.12 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 10:41:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iitbombay-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=e5ErrLkZru5uW9XJstCoaIIE/LFP7YPxYsa7IpLbdq4=; b=BYu/09tkZF87VRRCUKfuzxvsM9tx/Q+bfy4ncbPyk1A5efxHotKE/zraES6z8szH2f TqSA8AJ6xAwKMnkLfbiIgWuzn3hl66Cu7L0wc9/f5AuaPD08U/6YrEZseMvXfAAia3hd qcMYVyV39UBjFJ7y1VmFXv45z3N+ANB5wJGxyYOSHwz/xryBwphMlXZ97QJT3WlzIluj MvXUdsO9SVswU7Hg1YCccOhlrdbi3bd3aFnTOhz7QlEOL66l1s38vc+Ey0ZOtelwQaRw 0cpxGGkUkjHMHbWfb23osXIBJvi4kqaRAr6FE6PjdQVDO+LqNEKOpiX5jnr4yaYQMf/w w7bQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=e5ErrLkZru5uW9XJstCoaIIE/LFP7YPxYsa7IpLbdq4=; b=h42yNuSIn7QiyRp5yQh+pSn1RhiMbBT9vra1ma/EspSB4JsSsje6/v0KbXGz/dymNB 922GJcrIoLHk9OCN8K9GDg90CgHkADfvfR1ZmcJApVOhJGC+I/GMEwW2OOUv8JAmXR+q 9h01nOkaWrCM9+8SQF0Z/h6MGUHBTwh6EYFVLfaPwSThJF9NjQFXepwyAgf3OyZXC8vF qtY+c+9PCfrsJBlevINCa0cWidCto3ceEOWr6pWGNw0Iz62efwxvsHPaRtbaMudgH/Uz H2ik5o9kQUoYaO/HPmyWzYubKwSKSNmwAZfQLdCtbFvQYGH4V5zlvXV1JbfWzP28UtqP negw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532B0/jgZI/ufY8oklIf7KvQ119dj4fz3+jFhWdld6W8m41TTC5y EoTWvcp2FbwsZq5s/5neQgouuA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx5N43+Rm8yF1Z0Wi5y0emn4GF+6dEJUHZP5U5EqN5Uw4jDD3+MLwy1vBshhdY2GryyJ+AutA== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:550e:: with SMTP id l14mr578105oth.182.1612464084319; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 10:41:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknowna45e60f0be01.attlocal.net (172-125-77-130.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [172.125.77.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y10sm1246689ooy.11.2021.02.04.10.41.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Feb 2021 10:41:23 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\)) From: Bakul Shah In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:41:22 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <46DC5B33-1F08-4DAE-ACAC-4318DB1498DA@iitbombay.org> References: To: Dan Cross X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32) Subject: Re: [TUHS] FreeBSD behind the times? (was: Favorite unix design principles?) X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Feb 4, 2021, at 8:34 AM, Dan Cross wrote: >=20 > On the other hand, if we're discussing OS design and implementation, = (re)splitting the VM and buffer caches is a poor decision. One might = well ask, "why?" and the answer may be, "because it adds significant = complexity to the kernel." This to me seems like the crux of the = disagreement. Satisfied users of ZFS might legitimately ask, "who = cares?" and one might respond, "kernel maintainers." If the kernel is = mostly transparent as far as a particular use case goes, though, then I = can see why one would bulk at the suggestion that this matters. If one = is concerned with the design and implementation of kernels, I could see = why one would care very much. Largely agree; though the complexity battle has long been lost. On = multiple fronts. Many of us are happy to use such complex systems for = their ease of use or their feature set but wouldn=E2=80=99t want to = maintain these systems! I have used ZFS since 2005 and largely happy with it. Replaced all the = disks twice. Moved the same set of disks to a new machine. etc. = Features: cheap and fast snapshots, send/receive, clone, adding disks, = checksummed blocks, redundancy etc. The dedup impl. is suboptimal so I = don't use it. No idea if they considered using a bloom filter and a = cache to reduce memory use. If a new FS came along with a similar set of = features and a simpler, better integrated implementation, I'd switch.