From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Fri Jan 17 05:13:22 2020 Return-Path: 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 BFA64221CFB; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 05:13:22 +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 47zTjY4fJQz43XB; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 05:13:21 +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 00H5CY9k037646 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 05:12:35 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: imp@bsdimp.com Received: from [10.58.0.4] ([10.58.0.4]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 00H5CSxi040128 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:12:28 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: svn commit: r356758 - in head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall: . scripts To: Slawa Olhovchenkov References: <202001150747.00F7lqiG071097@repo.freebsd.org> <20200117000333.GI38096@zxy.spb.ru> Cc: Ed Maste , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , Oliver Pinter , Nathan Whitehorn , Ben Woods , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" , Warner Losh From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <3b4b4bda-75a3-3019-bc02-ecd6acacd77f@grosbein.net> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:12:22 +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: <20200117000333.GI38096@zxy.spb.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 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: 47zTjY4fJQz43XB X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=permerror (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eugen@grosbein.net uses mechanism not recognized by this client) smtp.mailfrom=eugen@grosbein.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.36 / 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)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.997,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[grosbein.net]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_PERMFAIL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[9]; IP_SCORE(-1.76)[ip: (-4.78), ipnet: 2a01:4f8::/29(-2.48), asn: 24940(-1.52), country: DE(-0.02)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS(1.50)[] 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 05:13:22 -0000 17.01.2020 7:03, Slawa Olhovchenkov write: >>>> 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? Considering /usr/ports, /usr/src and /usr/obj and amount of RAM needed to keep metadata in ZFS ARC plus standard daily periodic scripts traveling filesystems, low-RAM virtual machine utilizing its RAM to full amount can work reliably with UFS and hang at nights due to extra ZFS overhead in default install (not tuned). Been there, seen that.