From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org  Fri Jan 17 00:03:44 2020
Return-Path: <owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: svn-src-head@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 C67351FA7E4;
 Fri, 17 Jan 2020 00:03:44 +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 47zLrH5yYHz3K3T;
 Fri, 17 Jan 2020 00:03:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD))
 (envelope-from <slw@zxy.spb.ru>)
 id 1isF6s-000OGr-8T; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 03:03:34 +0300
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 03:03:34 +0300
From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru>
To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>
Cc: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>,
 "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>,
 "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>,
 Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com>,
 Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>,
 Ben Woods <woodsb02@freebsd.org>,
 "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>,
 Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r356758 - in head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall: . scripts
Message-ID: <20200117000333.GI38096@zxy.spb.ru>
References: <202001150747.00F7lqiG071097@repo.freebsd.org>
 <CAPjTQNHa9Um+0S8zMD3eeop3YSdVti0o=DSv5+B=455wcrq3VA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ed0b16af-01c8-62fe-918a-3f1f9f9dcbd8@freebsd.org>
 <CANCZdfpOw54MQsW4aohLn3ufgEqK8beTe_EdjYktViFubPPyzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aea3e071-61bd-399d-1d1f-cce4125b2480@grosbein.net>
 <CAPyFy2DEC=jhQdxOLjUGs9nr+2n733XJfWKjTKYbAY7eubRkRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe489e0f-f05a-8d85-6ef7-0f3bd7b6f9f4@grosbein.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fe489e0f-f05a-8d85-6ef7-0f3bd7b6f9f4@grosbein.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
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: 47zLrH5yYHz3K3T
X-Spamd-Bar: ++++
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none;
 spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of slw@zxy.spb.ru has no SPF policy when
 checking 195.70.199.98) smtp.mailfrom=slw@zxy.spb.ru
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [4.17 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[];
 TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[];
 TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[];
 MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[zxy.spb.ru];
 AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.70)[0.695,0];
 TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[];
 IP_SCORE(0.09)[asn: 5495(0.42), country: RU(0.01)];
 NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.99)[0.986,0]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[9];
 R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[];
 MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+];
 ASN(0.00)[asn:5495, ipnet:195.70.192.0/19, country:RU];
 MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS(1.50)[];
 RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]
X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current
 <svn-src-head.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/svn-src-head>,
 <mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-src-head@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head>,
 <mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 00:03:44 -0000

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 <eugen@grosbein.net> 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?