Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:23:48 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org> Cc: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com>, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, Ben Woods <woodsb02@freebsd.org>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: svn commit: r356758 - in head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall: . scripts Message-ID: <20200117112348.GZ89045@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <08F74089-9EDC-447D-A55E-610D543F1E57@freebsd.org> References: <202001150747.00F7lqiG071097@repo.freebsd.org> <CAPjTQNHa9Um%2B0S8zMD3eeop3YSdVti0o=DSv5%2BB=455wcrq3VA@mail.gmail.com> <ed0b16af-01c8-62fe-918a-3f1f9f9dcbd8@freebsd.org> <CANCZdfpOw54MQsW4aohLn3ufgEqK8beTe_EdjYktViFubPPyzg@mail.gmail.com> <aea3e071-61bd-399d-1d1f-cce4125b2480@grosbein.net> <CAPyFy2DEC=jhQdxOLjUGs9nr%2B2n733XJfWKjTKYbAY7eubRkRQ@mail.gmail.com> <fe489e0f-f05a-8d85-6ef7-0f3bd7b6f9f4@grosbein.net> <20200117000333.GI38096@zxy.spb.ru> <08F74089-9EDC-447D-A55E-610D543F1E57@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 04:19:52PM -0800, Devin Teske wrote: > > > > On Jan 16, 2020, at 16:03, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 02:43:37PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > > > >> 16.01.2020 4:41, Ed Maste wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 16:10, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> 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. > >>> > >>> It might be that we should default to UFS on i386 and ZFS on amd64? > >> > >> UFS may be better for any virtual guest having RAM less or equal to 4GB. > > > > Why? > > ZFS does not do any auto-tuning in that situation and you’ll quickly > find you’ll have a dozen or more tunables in loader.conf tailored to > your workload. Even moderate workloads require tuning in i386 and/or > <=4GB environments with ZFS. This (auto-tuning) can be fixed, I am do this. > It is also highly inadvisable to mix UFS and ZFS — memory pressure from ARC can cause UFS cache evictions and vice-versa. May be, don't test
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200117112348.GZ89045>