From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Wed Jan 15 21:41:29 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 3A54E1FE45A; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:41:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io1-f42.google.com (mail-io1-f42.google.com [209.85.166.42]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47ygkc268Zz44F8; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:41:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io1-f42.google.com with SMTP id d15so19495792iog.3; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:41:28 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JYc2kE/hT+gqJbSULIgOmbfeQGl0+sv/14izzq1b0Xo=; b=ObxhMclSv2kHo55ommTAKZDe49MvrYoNpD7j3ynvWnxHFYDemvOF5v5g9WfZN3gg1+ EvN0rMVELrtwXAcXZn404ArnBFt9o4WfFNw4/018q8x+KRapTkxzJGZ6uy0vGFtaNQ1C 82x5xqnJWn+jOQ+NH9Zhe+2HR+fQeRFK2qLSGEJGR6kf6lZvWYKlfbwyU5HrTo7ahOGB H0Pb0UcZDqdWyx/W27DMwX8/i2hT6OKBihuRvTHUENcQ8K7tS8eL5mfNb5bBStFEcyuy Oyx94PbXMbY6tAXMR6+eW4aeimLE6mcyLfG0dFQQLOHqo7advauSed4iG2HhMECWuHQV GpSw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWxwPK0Z8sGEYJAbS07ZGQZYyb9/monetk2fMN8OJSGdeQjc7dm hnH/LUhQH0RYUfxiDqWWW9zccNl4zF9xdZVftUyw5A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwBB0aXUM/BLsF8xX5ormegBLagGtwCW6mlRE4qLVBCJhKBXeeFD+YuE9xoq0c4Ez+HOdICnWhh13DdJUUfLX8= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:3ed6:: with SMTP id l205mr1378537ioa.100.1579124487068; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:41:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202001150747.00F7lqiG071097@repo.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: From: Ed Maste Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 16:41:14 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r356758 - in head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall: . scripts To: Eugene Grosbein Cc: Warner Losh , Nathan Whitehorn , Oliver Pinter , Ben Woods , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47ygkc268Zz44F8 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of carpeddiem@gmail.com designates 209.85.166.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=carpeddiem@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.62 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[42.166.85.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[8]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.996,0]; IP_SCORE(-2.12)[ip: (-5.64), ipnet: 209.85.128.0/17(-3.08), asn: 15169(-1.83), country: US(-0.05)]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[42.166.85.209.rep.mailspike.net : 127.0.0.17]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS(1.50)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] 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: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:41:29 -0000 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?