Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 11:37:59 -0800 From: Shawn Debnath <shawn@debnath.net> To: Andrea Brancatelli <abrancatelli@schema31.it> Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net>, <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: C bhyve administration tool Message-ID: <20151106193758.GA74312@debnath.net> In-Reply-To: <8c5965445d33870b3b1938aba513acbe@schema31.it> References: <20151103221930.GA50869@debnath.net> <CAE7bWBrD8QSZgrBX6ayj44qHM7NO09AP3u6w1=no5bE1qEJbYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPS9%2BSsPL8UOHmM2VUQjGOY2jE-eYJOHZ9uPieNLjyTdZqc-RA@mail.gmail.com> <1557160.7OrEWMRSrv@linux-85bq.suse> <20151105181450.GA71547@debnath.net> <8c5965445d33870b3b1938aba513acbe@schema31.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
True. My goal is that if this works out for everyone, that someday it might get pulled into the distribution. ZFS has it advantages, but you are correct. Not everyone in the world wants to use ZFS (for whatever the reason might be). Will make sure the core features stays file system independent, as it should. Down the road, I can imagine some advanced features that might require ZFS, but we can talk about that when the time comes. Andrea Brancatelli on 11/06/2015 12:36 wrote: > > > Il 2015-11-05 19:14 Shawn Debnath ha scritto: > > > Won't be dealing with ZFS management yet. > > If I can give you my two cents, if you plan on doing any kind of > management tool, please always keep in mind that ZFS is not required by > bhyve. We initially started with VMs on ZFS just to find out how > terribly slow it was and we now switched anything to a standard UFS > partition with a tremendous performance improvement in the VMs. > > So please don't take for granted that bhyve == zfs. > > Thanks :-) -- Shawn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151106193758.GA74312>