From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Tue Dec 5 15:22:52 2017 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 7410FE6D81E for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:22:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@redbarn.org) Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (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 632AB7ED81 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:22:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@redbarn.org) Received: from [192.168.11.48] (200.12.232.153.ap.dti.ne.jp [153.232.12.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4081461FA2 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:22:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5A26B9C8.7020005@redbarn.org> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 07:22:48 -0800 From: Paul Vixie User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.20 (Windows/20171012) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD virtualization Subject: Re: Storage overhead on zvols References: <423F466A-732A-4B04-956E-3CC5F5C47390@ebureau.com> In-Reply-To: <423F466A-732A-4B04-956E-3CC5F5C47390@ebureau.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 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: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:22:52 -0000 the surprising fact that came up in recent threads is that some of you run zfs in your guests. that's quite a bit of unnec'y redundancy and other overheads. i am using UFS in my guests.