From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Tue Dec 5 15:41:26 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 61536E6E26E for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:41:26 +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 4FB8D7F782 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:41:26 +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 D768661FA2 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:41:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5A26BE25.10409@redbarn.org> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 07:41:25 -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> <5A26B9C8.7020005@redbarn.org> <32BA4687-AB70-4370-A9BA-EF4F66BF69A6@ebureau.com> In-Reply-To: <32BA4687-AB70-4370-A9BA-EF4F66BF69A6@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 15:41:26 -0000 Dustin Wenz wrote: > I'm not using ZFS in my VMs for data integrity (the host already > provides that); it's mainly for the easy creation and management of > filesystems, and the ability to do snapshots for rollback and > replication. snapshot and replication works fine on the host, acting on the zvol. > Some of my deployments have hundreds of filesystems in > an organized hierarchy, with delegated permissions and automated > snapshots, send/recvs, and clones for various operations. what kind of zpool do you use in the guest, to avoid unwanted additional redundancy? did you benchmark the space or time efficiency of ZFS vs. UFS? in some bsd related meeting this year i asked allan jude for a bhyve level null mount, so that we could access at / inside the guest some subtree of the host, and avoid block devices and file systems altogether. right now i have to use nfs for that, which is irritating. -- P Vixie