>I'll call bull* on that. Microsoft has an admirably simple installation
>and 88% of the market. Apple has another admirably simple installation
>and 10% of the market. Solaris has less than 1% of the market and has
>had a very complex installation process. You can't win that battle by
>increa
Carson Gaspar wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
Miles Nordin wrote:
AIUI the later BE's are clones of the first, and not all blocks
will be rewritten, so it's still an issue. no?
In practice, yes, they are clones. But whether it is an issue
depends on what the "issue" is. As I see it, the iss
Richard Elling wrote:
Miles Nordin wrote:
AIUI the later BE's are clones of the first, and not all blocks
will be rewritten, so it's still an issue. no?
In practice, yes, they are clones. But whether it is an issue
depends on what the "issue" is. As I see it, the issue is that
someone wants
Miles Nordin wrote:
"re" == Richard Elling writes:
re> Note: in the Caiman world, this is only an issue for the first
re> BE. Later BEs can easily have other policies. -- richard
AIUI the later BE's are clones of the first, and not all blocks will
be rewritten, so it's
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:54 AM, wrote:
>
>>On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Ellis, Mike wrote:
>>> PS: At one point the old JumpStart code was encumbered, and the
>>> community wasn't able to assist. I haven't looked at the next-gen
>>> jumpstart framework that was delivered as part of the OpenSo
> "re" == Richard Elling writes:
re> Note: in the Caiman world, this is only an issue for the first
re> BE. Later BEs can easily have other policies. -- richard
AIUI the later BE's are clones of the first, and not all blocks will
be rewritten, so it's still an issue. no?
pgpsh8Y
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
>
>> popular interactive installers much more simplified. I agree that
>> interactive installation needs to remain as simple as possible.
>
> How about offering a choice an installation time: "Custom or
This sounds like a good idea to me, but it should be brought up
on the caiman-disc...@opensolaris.org mailing list, since this
is not just, or even primarily, a zfs issue.
Lori
Rich Teer wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
popular interactive installers much more simplified.
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
> popular interactive installers much more simplified. I agree that
> interactive installation needs to remain as simple as possible.
How about offering a choice an installation time: "Custom or default?"?
Those that don't want/need the interactive flex
Ellis, Mike wrote:
How about a generic "zfs options" field in the JumpStart profile?
(essentially an area where options can be specified that are all applied
to the boot-pool (with provisions to deal with a broken-out-var))
We had this discussion a while back and, IIRC, it was expected that
>On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Ellis, Mike wrote:
>> PS: At one point the old JumpStart code was encumbered, and the
>> community wasn't able to assist. I haven't looked at the next-gen
>> jumpstart framework that was delivered as part of the OpenSolaris SPARC
>> preview. Can anyone provide any
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Ellis, Mike wrote:
> PS: At one point the old JumpStart code was encumbered, and the
> community wasn't able to assist. I haven't looked at the next-gen
> jumpstart framework that was delivered as part of the OpenSolaris SPARC
> preview. Can anyone provide any backg
How about a generic "zfs options" field in the JumpStart profile?
(essentially an area where options can be specified that are all applied
to the boot-pool (with provisions to deal with a broken-out-var))
That should future proof things to some extent allowing for
compression=x, copies=x, blocksiz
13 matches
Mail list logo
