I think the discordance is around the semantics ZFS's implementation implies. Larry's point about mmap() vs a buffer cache is entirely valid; it took lots of people heroic amounts of work worthy of Greek sagas to bridge the difference between the original buffer and VM page caches, but ZFS says, "meh. too much work; not worth it." The practical implication of that is that memory mapped IO (via `mmap`) is no longer coherent with file IO (via `open`/`close`/`read`/`write`) without lots of work that both degrades performance and add complexity.

The question that a lot of folks who use ZFS regularly ask is, "does that matter?" And perhaps it doesn't: if I've got a file server sitting there serving NFS, do I care what it's kernel is doing? As long as it's saturating the network and disks, and it's reliable...not really. (Incidentally, that was kind of the philosophy behind the original plan9 file server kernel...as I heard the story, the rate of change of the plan9 kernel proper was too high, so Ken split off the file server portion into its own, special-purpose kernel, and it stayed like that for ~20 years). Similarly, if I'm on the local machine and the required coherence code is there and largely works, then again, perhaps as a consumer of the filesystem, I just don't care. After all, one can still get work done, and ZFS has a bunch of other features that make it very attractive, right? In particular, it's very good at NOT losing my data, kernel purity be damned.

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.

Like many things, it's a matter of perspective.

        - Dan C.