From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Thu Aug 27 17:20:56 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47EA9C37C6 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:20:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@redbarn.org) Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (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 AFF33163C for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:20:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@redbarn.org) Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cb:2598:ad18:8548:666e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cb:2598:ad18:8548:666e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C996918779; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:20:55 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <55DF46F5.4070406@redbarn.org> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:20:53 -0700 From: Paul Vixie User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.3 (Windows/20150805) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Churchyard CC: Marcus Reid , Vick Khera , "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Options for zfs inside a VM backed by zfs on the host References: <20150827061044.GA10221@blazingdot.com> <20150827062015.GA10272@blazingdot.com> <1a6745e27d184bb99eca7fdbdc90c8b5@SERVER.ad.usd-group.com> In-Reply-To: <1a6745e27d184bb99eca7fdbdc90c8b5@SERVER.ad.usd-group.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:20:56 -0000 let me ask a related question: i'm using FFS in the guest, zvol on the host. should i be telling my guest kernel to not bother with an FFS buffer cache at all, or to use a smaller one, or what?