I finally managed to have a small zfsroot on a 1 gig disk... with /usr, /var,
/export/home on a secondary pool.
If you follow the zfs boot manual install instruction or use the
'zfs-actual-root-install.sh' script, make sure of the following:
1/ Do not create your zfs boot root right after your
> Is it possible to create a pool called rootpool made up for example
> of mirror c1t0d0 c2t0d0
> then add 4 disks in raidz2 to the same pool and create a /usr
> filesystem using only the raidz2 portion of the pool?
Not usefully. You cannot segregate the location of data or datasets
within po
>>
>> The question of why to have different storage pools has still not
>> been
>> satisfactorily addressed. Methinks people are still confusing
>> pools and
>> data sets.
>>
>
> Is it possible to create a pool called rootpool made up for example
> of mirror c1t0d0 c2t0d0
> then add 4 disks
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:44:21AM -0700, John Plocher wrote:
>
>> Lori Alt wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not surprised that having /usr in a separate pool failed.
>>> The design of zfs boot largely assumes that root, /usr, and
>>> /var are all on the same pool, and it is unli
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 02:01:29PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:54:21PM +, A Darren Dunham wrote:
> > I wonder how much this would change if a functional "pivot-root"
> > mechanism were available. It be handy nice to boot from flash, import a
> > pool, then make
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> I'm curious as to why you think this
The characteristics of /, /usr and /var are quite different,
from a usage and backup requirements perspective:
/ is read-mostly, but contains critical config data.
/usr is read-only, and
/var (/var/mail, /var/mysql, ...) can be high v
John Plocher wrote:
> Lori Alt wrote:
>> I'm not surprised that having /usr in a separate pool failed.
>> The design of zfs boot largely assumes that root, /usr, and
>> /var are all on the same pool, and it is unlikely that we would
>> do the work to support any other configuration any time soon.
>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:54:21PM +, A Darren Dunham wrote:
> I wonder how much this would change if a functional "pivot-root"
> mechanism were available. It be handy nice to boot from flash, import a
> pool, then make that the running root.
>
> Does anyone know if that's a target of any Ope
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 01:41:32PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > Certainly, many of us will be satisfied with all-in-one pool,
> > just as we are today with all all-in-one filesystem, so this
> > makes sense as a first step. But, there needs to be the
> > presumption that the next steps towar
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:44:21AM -0700, John Plocher wrote:
> Lori Alt wrote:
> > I'm not surprised that having /usr in a separate pool failed.
> > The design of zfs boot largely assumes that root, /usr, and
> > /var are all on the same pool, and it is unlikely that we would
> > do the work to su
Lori Alt wrote:
> I'm not surprised that having /usr in a separate pool failed.
> The design of zfs boot largely assumes that root, /usr, and
> /var are all on the same pool, and it is unlikely that we would
> do the work to support any other configuration any time soon.
This seems, uhm, undesira
Same here, if zfs boot support raidz then my problems will be solved.
On 05/10/2007, at 11:27 PM, Rob Logan wrote:
>> I'm not surprised that having /usr in a separate pool failed.
>
> while this is discouraging, (I have several b62 machines with
> root mirrored and /usr on raidz) if booting from
> I'm not surprised that having /usr in a separate pool failed.
while this is discouraging, (I have several b62 machines with
root mirrored and /usr on raidz) if booting from raidz
is a pri, and comes soon, at least I'd be happy :-)
Rob
___
/var has no problem being on a separate pool.
Any reason why it assumes that root and /usr are on the same pool?
You're forcing me to sacrifice one or two disk and SATA/IDE port to
support "zfs boot" when a 1 gig flashdisk costs less than 10$.
/ would fit nicely on it, /usr doesn't.
I guess I
> Regarding compression, if I am not mistaken, grub
> cannot access files that are compressed.
There was a bug where grub was unable to access files
on zfs that contained holes:
Bug ID 6541114
SynopsisGRUB/ZFS fails to load files from a default compressed (lzjb)
root
http://bu
Kugutsumen wrote:
> Thanks, this is really strange.
> In your particular case you have /usr on the same pool as your rootfs
> and I guess that's why it is working for you.
>
> Alll my attempts with b64, b70 and b73 failed if /usr is on a
> separate pool.
>
I'm not surprised that having /usr
ZFS boot is one of the best usage of ZFS for me. I can create more then
10 boot environment, rollback or destroy if necessary. Not afraid of bfu
anymore or patching or any other software installation. If bfu breaks
the OS, just rollback as simple as that.
Rgds,
Andre W.
Kugutsumen wrote:
> Tha
Thanks, this is really strange.
In your particular case you have /usr on the same pool as your rootfs
and I guess that's why it is working for you.
Alll my attempts with b64, b70 and b73 failed if /usr is on a
separate pool.
On 05/10/2007, at 4:10 PM, Andre Wenas wrote:
> Hi Kugutsumen,
>
>
Hi Kugutsumen,
Not sure abt the bugs, I follow instruction at
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/boot/zfsboot-manual
and create separate /usr, /opt and /var filesystem.
Here is the vfstab:
#device device mount FS fsckmount
mount
#to mount t
Please do share how you managed to have a separate ZFS /usr since
b64; there are dependencies to /usr and they are not documented.
-kv doesn't help too. I tried added /usr/lib/libdisk* to a /usr/lib
dir on the root partition and failed.
Jurgen also pointed that there are two related bugs alre
Hi,
Using bootroot I can do seperate /usr filesystem since b64. I can also
do snapshot, clone and compression.
Rgds,
Andre W.
Kugutsumen wrote:
> Lori Alt told me that mountrount was a temporary hack until grub
> could boot zfs natively.
> Since build 62, mountroot support was dropped and I a
Remember that you have to maintain an entirely separate slice with yet
another boot environment. This causes huge amounts of complexity in
terms of live upgrade, multiple BE management, etc. The old mountroot
solution was useful for mounting ZFS root, but completely unmaintainable
from an install
Lori Alt told me that mountrount was a temporary hack until grub
could boot zfs natively.
Since build 62, mountroot support was dropped and I am not convinced
that this is a mistake.
Let's compare the two:
Mountroot:
Pros:
* can have root partition on raid-z: YES
* can have root partit
23 matches
Mail list logo
