Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:21:53 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Subject: Re: Defaults in 10.0 ZFS through bsdinstall Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1311210741480.58875@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <528D633B.6040104@freebsd.org> References: <20131114173423.GA21761@blazingdot.com> <CAJjvXiFydawETqm78A-e%2Bfvnje4BwRurs3k03j4aQRQJBt3pEA@mail.gmail.com> <D73108A73AA94C1EB7FBE5CFF7091E1F@multiplay.co.uk> <528D633B.6040104@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 11/20/13, 3:35 PM, Steven Hartland wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Ahrens" <mahrens@delphix.com> >>>> 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1311210741480.58875>