From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Fri Jan 17 11:23:50 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB5122B4AA for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:23:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47zdx25Hqnz4P0l; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:23:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1isPjA-0003x6-Vr; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:23:48 +0300 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:23:48 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Devin Teske Cc: Eugene Grosbein , Ed Maste , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , Oliver Pinter , Nathan Whitehorn , Ben Woods , Warner Losh Subject: Re: svn commit: r356758 - in head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall: . scripts Message-ID: <20200117112348.GZ89045@zxy.spb.ru> References: <202001150747.00F7lqiG071097@repo.freebsd.org> <20200117000333.GI38096@zxy.spb.ru> <08F74089-9EDC-447D-A55E-610D543F1E57@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <08F74089-9EDC-447D-A55E-610D543F1E57@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47zdx25Hqnz4P0l X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.99 / 15.00]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.992,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.998,0] X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:23:50 -0000 On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 04:19:52PM -0800, Devin Teske wrote: > > > > On Jan 16, 2020, at 16:03, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 02:43:37PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > > > >> 16.01.2020 4:41, Ed Maste wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 16:10, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > >>>> > >>>> There are multiple scenarios there ZFS may be sub-optimal at least: small i386 virtual guests > >>>> or 32-bit only hardware like AMD Geode, or big amd64 SSD-only systems with bhyve and multiple guests > >>>> that need lots of memory and should not fight with ZFS for RAM etc. > >>> > >>> That may well be the case, but our defaults should represent the > >>> configuration that's desirable to the largest set of users, and IMO > >>> that's ZFS in most cases today. > >>> > >>> It might be that we should default to UFS on i386 and ZFS on amd64? > >> > >> UFS may be better for any virtual guest having RAM less or equal to 4GB. > > > > Why? > > ZFS does not do any auto-tuning in that situation and you’ll quickly > find you’ll have a dozen or more tunables in loader.conf tailored to > your workload. Even moderate workloads require tuning in i386 and/or > <=4GB environments with ZFS. This (auto-tuning) can be fixed, I am do this. > It is also highly inadvisable to mix UFS and ZFS — memory pressure from ARC can cause UFS cache evictions and vice-versa. May be, don't test