From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Wed Jan 15 22:02:39 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC5A1FEC66; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:02:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pfg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47yhC26Wk6z45PY; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:02:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pfg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (unknown [181.52.72.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: pfg) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC61D1A4A4; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:02:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pfg@FreeBSD.org) Subject: Re: svn commit: r356758 - in head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall: . scripts To: Ed Maste , Eugene Grosbein Cc: Warner Losh , Nathan Whitehorn , Oliver Pinter , Ben Woods , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" References: <202001150747.00F7lqiG071097@repo.freebsd.org> From: Pedro Giffuni Organization: FreeBSD Message-ID: <6925a470-ccbe-1446-e55e-f0aa8b6e6387@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:02:38 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:02:39 -0000 On 15/01/2020 16:41, Ed Maste wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 16:10, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >> There are multiple scenarios there ZFS may be sub-optimal at least: small i386 virtual guests >> or 32-bit only hardware like AMD Geode, or big amd64 SSD-only systems with bhyve and multiple guests >> that need lots of memory and should not fight with ZFS for RAM etc. > That may well be the case, but our defaults should represent the > configuration that's desirable to the largest set of users, and IMO > that's ZFS in most cases today. There is also the policy of not making copyleft code mandatory (technically, CDDL is weak copyleft). If ZFS is disabled in the build, the installer should gracefully disable it too. > It might be that we should default to UFS on i386 and ZFS on amd64? FWIW, I still use ZFS for root, because of the older MBR and the need to multiboot. Pedro.