On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 04:19:52PM -0800, Devin Teske wrote: > > > > On Jan 16, 2020, at 16:03, Slawa Olhovchenkov <s...@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 <eu...@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 _______________________________________________ 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"
