From nobody Sun Aug 29 04:05:32 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-cloud@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 47F3F179C971 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2021 04:05:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cperciva@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.tarsnap.com (mail.tarsnap.com [54.86.246.204]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4Gy0H73QPfz3FMf for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2021 04:05:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cperciva@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 23576 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2021 04:05:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dell7390.daemonology.net) (127.0.0.1) by mail.tarsnap.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 2021 04:05:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 80845 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2021 04:05:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dell7390.daemonology.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Aug 2021 04:05:32 -0000 To: "freebsd-cloud@freebsd.org" From: Colin Percival Subject: RFC: Switching FreeBSD/EC2 images to UEFI boot Message-ID: <79c48cc2-5341-2cea-7d6e-4372f7c93245@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 21:05:32 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 List-Id: FreeBSD on cloud platforms (EC2, GCE, Azure, etc.) List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-cloud List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-cloud@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Gy0H73QPfz3FMf X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; ASN(0.00)[asn:14618, ipnet:54.86.0.0/16, country:US] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N Hi Cloudy people, We have a decision to make and I'm looking for input from the community: Should FreeBSD's x86 EC2 AMIs be marked as booting using UEFI instead of the current (default) BIOS boot mode? The argument in favour of sticking with BIOS booting is that the older EC2 instance types -- up to M4/C4/R4/T2 -- don't support UEFI. There's a full list of which instance types support UEFI at https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ami-boot.html but roughly speaking it's a case of "Nitro instances support UEFI while Xen based instances require BIOS". (Note that whatever decision we make, it will still be possible to build AMIs which support BIOS booting -- the question is just which mode the official project-published images are marked to use.) The argument in favour of switching to UEFI booting is that it's faster -- around 4.7 seconds faster in my testing. While this may not seem like a big difference, it's the difference between being on par with most Linuxes or lagging far behind; and there's a definite quality-of-life benefit to being able to spin up an EC2 instance and SSH in to start using it quickly. (Also benefits for people using autoscaling, since they can respond to increased load faster.) One obvious question to ask here is "how many people are using the older instance types which only support BIOS", and I have some data from the AWS Marketplace about that: * Instances originally launched on FreeBSD 9.x and 10.x are all using older instance types. * About 60% of instances originally launched on FreeBSD 11.x are using older instance types. * About 40% of instances originally launched on FreeBSD 12.x and 13.0 are using older instance types. Almost all of the "older instance type" usage on FreeBSD 12.x and 13.0 is T2 family instances, which I suspect is for two reasons: 1. For a long time I had t2.micro listed as the default instance type on the AWS Marketplace listings, and 2. FreeBSD 13.0 has problems on T3 instances due to the TSC timecounter not working reliably. This problem has now been corrected in HEAD and I'm hoping the fix will be MFCed in time for FreeBSD 13.1. I don't have any data on instances launched outside of the AWS Marketplace. So, as I started this email saying: We have a decision to make and I'm looking for input from the community. Faster booting, or support for older EC2 instance types in our published AMIs? -- Colin Percival Security Officer Emeritus, FreeBSD | The power to serve Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid From nobody Sun Aug 29 11:30:23 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-cloud@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 C634C17A4916 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2021 11:30:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from raf+NU=eb39f044@rafal.net) Received: from smtp-out-4.mxes.net (smtp-out-4.mxes.net [198.205.123.69]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GyB8T5q2Xz4l50 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2021 11:30:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from raf+NU=eb39f044@rafal.net) Received: from Customer-MUA (mua.mxes.net [10.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4GyB8K4y9Fz3c8d for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2021 07:30:25 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mxes.net; s=mta; t=1630236626; bh=zjAz7mDsHU8x0iFp4wcMa+/+wIoUCA3qE7CUxtDpvto=; h=From:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:To: In-Reply-To:Message-Id; b=i/9ANCl/7Sq/qJW7WnqRXNT0+f1jSHYKIgHUBf2yvQRzPVtxiUWsYiaJQ+cjeUZf6 fXMpvqiOOw6VwQksA3CQxVk16lXu1+5ffJO6qmvfJTQqP3cqIzTURyZW/f729auYBo qWLOfA8Ga0taYh5LlUiahckyEZqHJBDXxoH0jOIg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rafal.net; s=tm; t=1630236625; bh=zjAz7mDsHU8x0iFp4wcMa+/+wIoUCA3qE7CUxtDpvto=; l=986; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=bMORh9SXxm6yzc4bgR1fSV/ph/G4NYPFV53OZqhA490eiTeqnd4cXepGhUJnwrsep /UCzYFj3+8kIVYdCnwoTuKYmmGhR0ijUqBM6AkWkMIrH6HbjSwKCXO2VwoqgKLYeRx 3xhLw9XvNFbEb8hZ2exOmFS1FwvyjQigGq6bVbng= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: FreeBSD on cloud platforms (EC2, GCE, Azure, etc.) List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-cloud List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-cloud@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: RFC: Switching FreeBSD/EC2 images to UEFI boot Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2021 12:30:23 +0100 References: <79c48cc2-5341-2cea-7d6e-4372f7c93245@freebsd.org> To: "freebsd-cloud@freebsd.org" In-Reply-To: <79c48cc2-5341-2cea-7d6e-4372f7c93245@freebsd.org> Message-Id: <7F854796-C481-4BA7-B729-29E84BAF1856@rafal.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-Sent-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4GyB8T5q2Xz4l50 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=mxes.net header.s=mta header.b="i/9ANCl/"; dkim=pass header.d=rafal.net header.s=tm header.b=bMORh9SX; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=rafal.net; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of raf@rafal.net designates 198.205.123.69 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=raf@rafal.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.60 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[mxes.net:s=mta,rafal.net:s=tm]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[mxes.net:dkim]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-cloud@freebsd.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:198.205.123.0/25]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[mxes.net:+,rafal.net:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[rafal.net,reject]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.997]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; ASN(0.00)[asn:19844, ipnet:198.205.122.0/23, country:US]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[NU=eb39f044]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[198.205.123.69:from] Reply-To: raf@rafal.net From: Rafal Lukawiecki via freebsd-cloud X-Original-From: Rafal Lukawiecki X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N > On 29 Aug 2021, at 05:05, Colin Percival wrote: >=20 > We have a decision to make and I'm > looking for input from the community. Faster booting, or support for = older > EC2 instance types in our published AMIs? >=20 > --=20 > Colin Percival Thanks for asking, Colin. =46rom my perspective, any improvement to boot = times is highly welcome. I am not affected by the older/legacy instance = types. I suspect that in the world of fast-changing cloud provisioning, = and very much unlike in the world of real hardware, there would be less = of a need to maintain support for older platforms. While it is important = for FreeBSD to support older physical hardware, laptops, cards etc, I do = not think that is as important for cloud platforms at all. However, I = fully respect that others may have different perspectives, so please do = not base your decision merely on mine. -- Rafal Lukawiecki Data Scientist=20 Project Botticelli Ltd= From nobody Sun Aug 29 16:59:53 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-cloud@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 1AAD217A6966 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2021 16:59:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pete@nomadlogic.org) Received: from mail.nomadlogic.org (mail.nomadlogic.org [66.165.241.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mail.nomadlogic.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GyKS95KgVz3pRg; Sun, 29 Aug 2021 16:59:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pete@nomadlogic.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nomadlogic.org; s=04242021; t=1630256369; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=aHLKkLEV2+GYgBQ2OfOrCI/gFy0anc7hoUEf75e7vH4=; b=d/gzBNOp+vxf6G31tdoldj3g1D7Q88T2B6WbKMxUlZ2yYTyU57yTI/D1m6VdaYmRVNiGbM JPxu0rOUvoDV1cXrZ1Rg+F2n1kOP0XBikU72Lh4xKGU9rgqk/oaQP5Gai3gtMq4tH360m/ NMsEf1J67AaBlzMubqU9EQphfkrQKBE= Received: from [192.168.1.223] (cpe-24-24-163-126.socal.res.rr.com [24.24.163.126]) by mail.nomadlogic.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 1755139d (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Sun, 29 Aug 2021 16:59:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: RFC: Switching FreeBSD/EC2 images to UEFI boot To: Colin Percival , "freebsd-cloud@freebsd.org" References: <79c48cc2-5341-2cea-7d6e-4372f7c93245@freebsd.org> Message-ID: <1e1829ab-bf3d-91f4-d21d-424398a899f7@nomadlogic.org> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2021 09:59:53 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 List-Id: FreeBSD on cloud platforms (EC2, GCE, Azure, etc.) List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-cloud List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-cloud@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <79c48cc2-5341-2cea-7d6e-4372f7c93245@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4GyKS95KgVz3pRg X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] Reply-To: pete@nomadlogic.org From: Pete Wright via freebsd-cloud X-Original-From: Pete Wright X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 8/28/21 9:05 PM, Colin Percival wrote: > Hi Cloudy people, > > We have a decision to make and I'm looking for input from the community: > Should FreeBSD's x86 EC2 AMIs be marked as booting using UEFI instead of > the current (default) BIOS boot mode? I am in favor of making UEFI the default.  faster boot times and more parity with linux would both be wins for me.  having said that I've standardized on Nitro instance types a year or so ago, and use AMD instance types for my BSD systems so there would be no downside for me in particular. i did see on twitter that at least one person noted that free credits only apply to T2 instance class systems, so their may be some downside for people investigating moving to EC2 if they want to leverage the free tier.  this make we wonder, do linux vendors provide support for both BIOS and UEFI enabled systems? Cheers, -pete -- Pete Wright pete@nomadlogic.org @nomadlogicLA