Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 19:16:07 -0600 From: Mike Karels <mike@karels.net> To: Ben Woods <woodsb02@gmail.com> Cc: Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org>, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, Ben Woods <woodsb02@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r356758 - in head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall: . scripts Message-ID: <202001180116.00I1G705020955@mail.karels.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 17 Jan 2020 17:14:54 %2B1000. <CAOc73CB75Szqt95fNcks3x%2BRBEZYGA4eUCBHWa39GMha6enOuA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 08:21, Ben Woods <woodsb02@gmail.com> wrote: > > Perhaps we could simply include a message on that bsdinstall partitioning > > mode selection screen that UFS is recommended on systems with < 4 Gb RAM? > > > I have uploaded a diff for this here: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D23224 > Please let me know your thoughts (comments in the phabricator review would > be best). I think this needs more discussion, preferably on this list. I am not convinced that systems with as little as 4 GB should use ZFS. Conventional wisdom on the FreeNAS mailing list says that 8 GB is required for ZFS, and FreeNAS no longer includes UFS as an option. Conrad suggested a cutoff of 16 GB; I am happier with 16 GB than 4 GB as a cutoff. Also, there was mention of auto-tuning for smaller systems; I don't think that has materialized yet. I'm not sure how plausible that is without knowing the workload. I use ZFS on a workstation/server with 64 GB that runs 4 bhyve guests that do things like buildworld. ZFS wants 63 GB for arc_max; needless to say, I have a tunable set to a much lower value. If tuning is required, it is unclear that ZFS is a good default. Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202001180116.00I1G705020955>