From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 10 12:04:36 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39E6106588C; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:04:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan.naumov@gmail.com) Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (yw-out-2324.google.com [74.125.46.28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A488FC12; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:04:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan.naumov@gmail.com) Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 9so394470ywe.13 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:04:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HR7zCpt9mss1nAWkIybTFdOkW9lyfSRQyQff1kCDkeY=; b=xG19fo/mUNGYbX8WyIBGotjoyq5zuJpeCT69SCxx54cnfNSekQUd1tLhXOm6oQAl3O +0tCCmE2EVw0fbeMca6WNf201kEYK/MYx1Oy9cN5RW91gAK2g6Es6FAkc051s7RXApQS cYtu42pK11iDlt2F1iFISzjnK5okYyclmKgSs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JB15QefoiXDyXQA+8fBTmT8s6NIJ3acYtqFkCZhtTCC/Zl1KNJ2ZR3ZcH9K1HsSEkV tSklbG+A+wd40guwUHkF/fCLlq3DYWUqBPR4rYfP0jwsM/cowYcDJJ/TZvlyqyVpuYW0 EWYogeEm4IY2NTJVcwDbyoR14pA2/8bLQooqY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.8.4 with SMTP id 4mr1145704anh.146.1244635475618; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:04:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20090609172142.GA92146@ebi.local> <20090609.195750.41709103.sthaug@nethelp.no> <86hbyowgj6.fsf@ds4.des.no> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:04:35 +0300 Message-ID: From: Dan Naumov To: Wojciech Puchar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:25:37 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Dmitry Morozovsky , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, sthaug@nethelp.no, snb@freebsd.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=F8rgrav?= Subject: Re: sysinstall, GJOURNAL and ZFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:04:54 -0000 And things like these are amongst the reasons why I want to see newer options be presented and offered to the user during installation process. Default installation options (and the ONLY options presented by sysinstall) that result in enormous snapshot creation times and long fsck times are just not good enough in the year 2009. I fully understand the reasons behind using something "truly tested and proven by time" as the default, but presenting the newer options to the user during installation process as well gives these newer options (UFS2+GJournal and ZFS in this case) a better exposure, resulting in more testing, resulting in these new features getting their quirks ironed out faster and resulting in these new features getting the "truly tested and proven by time" stamp of approval faster. I think we can all agree this would be a good thing? Sincerely - Dan Naumov On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> to be more precise): inappropriate time of file system lock on snapshot >> creation. On not-too-big 300G ufs2 not-too-heavy loaded snapshot creatio= n >> time >> is 20+ minutes, and 5+ from that file system blocked even on reads. =A0T= his >> looks >> unacceptable for me for any real use. > > that's why i disable it. If you sum up time of total blocked and time of > almost-blocked you will end with much more than fsck normally use with > foreground check. > > >