From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Thu Jan 16 07:44:01 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 C246422C86B; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:44:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47yx5s4CfMz4bFQ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:44:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [IPv6:2a03:3100:c:13:0:0:0:5]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 00G7hmbf021785 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:43:49 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from [10.58.0.4] ([10.58.0.4]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 00G7hh34028159 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:43:43 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: svn commit: r356758 - in head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall: . scripts To: Ed Maste References: <202001150747.00F7lqiG071097@repo.freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh , Nathan Whitehorn , Oliver Pinter , Ben Woods , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:43:37 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOCAL_FROM, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47yx5s4CfMz4bFQ X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.95 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.95)[-0.949,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; REPLY(-4.00)[] 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: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:44:01 -0000 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.