Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:19:51 -0800 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r356758 - in head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall: . scripts Message-ID: <2C0CC3EC-343D-4068-9E05-856A66FF175C@yahoo.com> References: <2C0CC3EC-343D-4068-9E05-856A66FF175C.ref@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ed Maste emaste at freebsd.org wrote on Thu Jan 16 02:14:58 UTC 2020 : > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 17:55, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > > It's not i386 vs amd64 that's the issue. It's the total amount of = RAM. ZFS > > is perfectly happy with i386 installs with enough RAM. We'd catch = most > > sub-optimal cases if we'd offer it only for systems with > ~2-4GB. >=20 > Very good point, defaulting to UFS for <4GB and ZFS for >=3D4GB sounds > decent to me. I'd pick to avoid Rock64, RPi4, etc. in 4 GiByte configurations ending up with ZFS by default, suggesting: UFS for <=3D 4 GiByte and ZFS for > 4 GiByte if 4 GiByte is to the at the boundary. What fraction of the <=3D 4GiByte systems are such contexts? (I'd probably bundle <=3D 4 GiByte PowerPCs with such Arm contexts but they may not add much.) It also might be that the snapshots and release builds might not use the same criteria as the installer defaults. (Only applies to those that end up with such snapshot and release builds. But the RPi4 would seem likely to get such builds someday.) It might be that snapshots and releases would consider how likely uSD cards for the known target cases. (I do not know what the UFS vs. ZFS tradeoffs are for such media issues. This might be an area were PowerPCs with <=3D 4 GiByte is not a match.) A consideration for placing the boundary might be how much extra support configuring might happen on the lists. An example is those trying buildworld buildkernel on these sorts of physically-small systems. Likely such folks will try -j4 just to try to cut the time involved. I'm not sure how well this would go with a default ZFS configuration. (And llvm materials are likely to continue to grow for what it takes to build them, so what might be marginal now later could be a problem.) Which is easier to support on the lists for these sort of contexts, if they are a notable fraction of the <=3D 4 GiByte usage? UFS? ZFS? =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com ( dsl-only.net went away in early 2018-Mar)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2C0CC3EC-343D-4068-9E05-856A66FF175C>