From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Thu Jan 16 05:15:53 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29577229717 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:15:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from philip@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47yspx05S9z4T63; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:15:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from philip@freebsd.org) Received: from weatherwax.trouble.is (weatherwax.trouble.is [IPv6:2a00:1098:82:3a::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "weatherwax.trouble.is", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: philip/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8CB21DD1D; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:15:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from philip@freebsd.org) Received: from rincewind.trouble.is (rincewind.trouble.is [95.216.22.234]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "rincewind.trouble.is", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by weatherwax.trouble.is (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47yspt65jKz1SZD; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:15:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by rincewind.trouble.is (Postfix, authenticated sender philip) id 47yspp2HJXz4Jfj; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:15:45 +0000 (UTC) From: "Philip Paeps" To: "Conrad Meyer" Cc: "Ed Maste" , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, "Ben Woods" Subject: Re: svn commit: r356758 - in head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall: . scripts Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 15:15:40 +1000 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5676) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <202001150747.00F7lqiG071097@repo.freebsd.org> <6925a470-ccbe-1446-e55e-f0aa8b6e6387@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:15:53 -0000 On 2020-01-16 13:32:07 (+1000), Conrad Meyer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 6:15 PM Ed Maste wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 17:55, Warner Losh 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. >> >> Very good point, defaulting to UFS for <4GB and ZFS for >=4GB sounds >> decent to me. I would support that. Ben: can you add a check for memory around the default selection? > I'd suggest UFS < 16 GB and ZFS >= 16 GB instead. 4GB is _plenty_ for ZFS. But I'd like mine purple with yellow spots please. :) Philip -- Philip Paeps Senior Reality Engineer Alternative Enterprises