From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 21 15:22:07 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F9F3ED4; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:22:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB2CD2EB1; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:22:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rALFLvcT059354; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:21:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id rALFLrcM059351; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:21:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:21:53 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: Defaults in 10.0 ZFS through bsdinstall In-Reply-To: <528D633B.6040104@freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <20131114173423.GA21761@blazingdot.com> <528D633B.6040104@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:21:57 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-fs , Matthew Ahrens X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:22:07 -0000 On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 11/20/13, 3:35 PM, Steven Hartland wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Ahrens" >>>> I noticed a couple of things with the ZFS defaults that result from >>>> using the new installer in 10.0-BETA3. >>>> >>>> One, atime is turned off everywhere by default. There was a thread on >>>> this list on June 8 with a subject of 'Changing the default for ZFS >>>> atime to off?', and from what I can tell the idea of turning off atime >>>> by default was not a popular one. >>>> >>>> >>> It would be a pity if people compared ZFS on FreeBSD vs UFS on FreeBSD >>> (using the installer's defaults) and came to the conclusion that "Mail >>> programs don't work on ZFS on FreeBSD, use UFS instead." I think it's >>> well >>> known that there are performance differences between ZFS and UFS, >>> depending >>> on your workload. If you choose defaults that cause there to be >>> correctness differences, that could be detrimental. >> >> It would also be a pitty if users came to conclusion not to use ZFS because >> it wears their SSD's out much quicker than UFS does or performs much >> worse. >> >> Having a sensible default that's correctly messaged is something to >> be commended not discouraged because its not the tradition and for >> those that don't bother reading they may have issues as that could >> be said for any option. >> >> Its also not something that can't be changed in seconds either, so the >> suggestion of /var with it enabled so default mail installs work >> as normal and for those that choose to install mail folders else >> where they need to read and learn, instead of peanalising every single >> user gets my vote. > > I think the installer should make a point of asking the user what they need.. > then they cannot complain if they chose something they don't want. How about adding a test and warning to /etc/mail/Makefile and the ports affected? Or maybe it can be done in a single place with mailwrapper. In general, it seems like the applications that depend on atime (or any feature, really) should be responsible for detecting that it is enabled.