Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 23:20:28 +0100 From: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org>, Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Amazon AMIs Message-ID: <53a0bd68-a6ba-e8ad-4af2-abeb22e92c03@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <8a139c9c-b98b-4a54-1d7c-0ea1e3dc7a72@freebsd.org> References: <f002c020-1e63-c12f-456e-e20f8546a701@FreeBSD.org> <8a139c9c-b98b-4a54-1d7c-0ea1e3dc7a72@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Colin Percival wrote: > On 2/20/19 3:00 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> Question: Why is m4.large the recommended instance type? Surely we'd be >> better served and present users with a better experience by recommending an m5 >> instance as one of the more modern and higher performance types? > > Last time I looked at this, we weren't handling hotplug/hotunplug of "NVMe" > disks properly on the m5/c5/etc. instances. I opted to recommend the instance > which completely works rather than the one with slightly better performance... It does happen only on a few instances, but I get some freezes on new t3 machines: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235856 They are indeed cheaper and more performant, but not 100% reliable in every workload. -- Alex Dupre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53a0bd68-a6ba-e8ad-4af2-abeb22e92c03>