Quoting Robert Millan (firstname.lastname@example.org): > Hi Christian, > > > If I understand well, partman-zfs is unstable on kfreebsd-i386 but > > fine on kfreebsd-amd64. However, would it be a problem to talk about > > "32 bits systems" and "64 bits systems" instead of "i386" and "amd64"? > > This is a common missconception. ZFS has stability and performance > problems on Intel 386 due to limitations of this architecture, it's not > because of word length. I386 carries on with 30 years of ill design > decisions and legacy baggage. Other 32-bit architectures such as > ARM or MIPS don't suffer from this kind of issues. My main point is to avoid "jargon". Here, we are talking about kfreebsd ports where only two flavours exist: -i386 and -amd64. Both run on the same family of processors and the main difference between them is that one is 32-bits and the other is 64-bits. So, as what we basically want to say users is "hey, if you pick ZFS file system, you guys should really pick the so-called amd64 architecture", my proposal seems to be a good way to do so. Maybe, if we want to be picky, we could say: " Although ZFS is supported on 32 bits i386 family systems, using it without special tuning may lead to performance or stability problems." > > Specifically, the problems have to do with small number of > general-purpose registers and with inability to implement > privilege separation at the MMU level. > > > These arches names are confusing enough, imho. > > What's confusing about them? I think that a random poll among users would easily lead to many people thinking that "amd64" should only be used with systems with AMD processors. This is what I call "confusing".
Description: Digital signature