On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 04:58:56PM +1030, Brett Lymn wrote:
> Perhaps a shim program that manages a socket between it and the
> underlying daemon - the shim can talk to inetd to coordinate the handoff
> of an incoming connection and also being put back onto the idle pool
> when the connection close
Lots of interesting discussion! Thanks all.
Broadly I think I can summarise to the following options:
1. The existing critical_filesystems_zfs rc.conf variable, which
mixes ZFS configuration in both rc.conf and with ZFS itself.
2. Add ZFS "critical" properties for filesystems and mount tho
Simon Burge writes:
> Lots of interesting discussion! Thanks all.
As a loud ranter I'll comment briefly but thanks for the summary and I
think we're heading for a good place.
> Broadly I think I can summarise to the following options:
>
> 1. The existing critical_filesystems_zfs rc.conf vari
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:32:40 -0400
> From: Greg Troxel
>
> Simon Burge writes:
>
> > 5. Move all local mounts to /etc/rc.d/mountcritlocal (ala
> > FreeBSD) and possibly rename this to /etc/rc.d/mountlocal .
>
> I think the only thing we lose with this is the ability to mount local
>
Taylor R Campbell writes:
>> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:32:40 -0400
>> From: Greg Troxel
>>
>> Simon Burge writes:
>>
>> > 5. Move all local mounts to /etc/rc.d/mountcritlocal (ala
>> > FreeBSD) and possibly rename this to /etc/rc.d/mountlocal .
>>
>> I think the only thing we lose with
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:52:03PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> Does anyone actually do this -- have local mounts on top of remote
> mounts?
I do, but all machines affected have / on NFS which makes the setup
trivial.
Martin
>> This is possible for only a restricted set of services (those that
>> are at least conceptually datagram services, more or less).
> I don't think it precludes tcp as long as they are stateless - http
> is an obvious example
Ish. HTTP is stateless in the sense that consecutive
requests/response
>> 3. Move all ZFS mounts to /etc/rc.d/mountcritlocal .
> 3 is the only thing here I object to because it is architecturally
> unclean, giving special semantics to zfs.
ZFS is already architecturally unclean, in that it means that
/etc/fstab no longer describes the set of standardly mounted
files
On 3/17/22 15:17, Mouse wrote:
3. Move all ZFS mounts to /etc/rc.d/mountcritlocal .
3 is the only thing here I object to because it is architecturally
unclean, giving special semantics to zfs.
ZFS is already architecturally unclean, in that it means that
/etc/fstab no longer describes the set
> Does anyone actually do this -- have local mounts on top of remote
> mounts?
At the moment I don't, but I have in the past and have no real doubt I
will in the future.
> I keep hearing about the theoretical possibility of /usr on nfs and
> /usr/src or /usr/local on local ffs.
Back when I worke
On 3/17/2022 5:52 AM, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> Does anyone actually do this -- have local mounts on top of remote
mounts?
> I keep hearing about the theoretical possibility of /usr on nfs and
/usr/src or /usr/local on local ffs.
Not directly relevant to NetBSD, but the standard (IIRC) set
>> ZFS is already architecturally unclean, in that it means that
>> /etc/fstab no longer describes the set of standardly mounted
>> filesystems. (I was not aware of this property of ZFS; [...].)
> [Y]ou can set a property on the file system not to automatically
> mount and perform a "legacy" mount
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:17:50AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
>
> ZFS is already architecturally unclean, in that it means that
> /etc/fstab no longer describes the set of standardly mounted
> filesystems. (I was not aware of this property of ZFS; I find it
> astonishing - and depressing - that nobody b
13 matches
Mail list logo
