From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Sat Mar 19 01:48:37 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3CEAD53F4 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 01:48:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rcarter@pinyon.org) Received: from quine.pinyon.org (quine.pinyon.org [65.101.5.249]) (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 22D8630C for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 01:48:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rcarter@pinyon.org) Received: by quine.pinyon.org (Postfix, from userid 122) id B63CA1601E7; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:48:29 -0700 (MST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on quine.pinyon.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from feyerabend.n1.pinyon.org (feyerabend.n1.pinyon.org [10.0.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by quine.pinyon.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7CB0160160 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:48:27 -0700 (MST) To: "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" From: "Russell L. Carter" Subject: UFS vs. ZFS inside bhyve hosted on ZFS Message-ID: <56ECAFEB.8060305@pinyon.org> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:48:27 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 01:48:37 -0000 Greetings, So I am becoming quite enamored of an 11-current bhyve guest installed with ZFS root running on a 10-stable host with ZFS and driven by an AMD FX-8320. However the 3 cpus I give it seem to translate to a lot of overhead on the host when building the -current world, determined by drinking beer and watching htop on both. The guest is running a GENERIC-NODEBUG kernel, and I'm building with MALLOC_PRODUCTION=yes. The host is much leaner. So I am wondering if UFS in the -current guest might be better overall. I can certainly do a multiple hour experiment, installing a new guest with UFS root, but since I am new to this, perhaps there is conventional wisdom about ZFS vs. UFS in the guest? Maybe UFS in the guest requires less cpu resources from the host? Or not? Thanks, Russell