From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Mon Aug 8 16:45:49 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@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 56705BB1B0D for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 16:45:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (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 2B62B1269 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 16:45:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u78GjmgX098355 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 16:45:49 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 211361] suggested boot partition size is too small, bsdinstall creates unaligned partitions Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 16:45:49 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: misc X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: mfc-stable11? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 16:45:49 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D211361 --- Comment #11 from Nathan Whitehorn --- (In reply to Dag-Erling Sm=C3=83=C2=B8rgrav from comment #10) Sure, but the *policy* shouldn't be in the installer, but in the userland t= ools that it wraps. Otherwise, the default behavior of the installer is "correct= ", but file systems created with ZFS will have the wrong IO size, partitions a= dded with gpart will have the wrong alignment, etc. The installer is supposed to be an extremely thin wrapper around the normal userland tools: it's a bare front-end for gpart, newfs, and tar. If we have= bad defaults in those tools, the problem should be fixed there rather than addi= ng magic to the installer to "fix" defaults that we control. sysinstall did th= is rampantly and it was terrible; it made divergences between different method= s of installing the system and made new users go back to the installer to do thi= ngs and hose their systems thereby. If we don't want the kernel to guess, and don't want the base userland tool= s to guess, I would have no objections to some global tunable or something set by the user that tells GEOM to round up to some value for stripe size, or an additional GEOM property (recommended IO size), or some system setting that suggests a minimum IO size and alignment to all userland tools. These could= be adopted universally and don't result in anything "lying". If any of those solutions are too much to get done in time for the 11 release, I also would= n't object to a direct commit of your patch to stable/11 as a stopgap. But, bey= ond that, modifying the installer to work around bad defaults in the operating system generally is a bad idea and a road we should not go down. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=