On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:12:22PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > 17.01.2020 7:03, Slawa Olhovchenkov write: > > >>>> 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? > > Considering /usr/ports, /usr/src and /usr/obj and amount of RAM > needed to keep metadata in ZFS ARC
/usr/ports, /usr/src and /usr/obj don't need be exist on low-RAM install -- use poudriere and release build on dedicated build host and applay binary update. > plus standard daily periodic scripts traveling filesystems, low-RAM virtual > machine utilizing its RAM to full amount > can work reliably with UFS and hang at nights due to extra ZFS overhead in > default install (not tuned). Just need fix ZFS ARC pressure and UMA zone reclaim. ZFS ARC overhead about 10-20MB (IMHO) on low-RAM install. This is negligible from 512MB. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
