Brad Spencer wrote: > Alexander Nasonov <al...@yandex.ru> writes: > > Are there any downside of mixing legacy and non-legacy mountpoints? > > E.g. if my /var is legacy but /var/crash is a normal ZFS mountpoint? > > That should work fine as long as /var was arranged to be mounted first. > The other way around may and probably is trouble right now, where a > zpool Not-legacy needs to be mounted so that a ZFS legacy filesystem or, > in fact, any other filesystem type gets mounted under it. I believe > that Solaris did and probably still does have this problem too. Legacy > ZFS mounts should be perfectly workable even from single user when /usr > isn't available yet for most simple use cases.
Since I plan to migrate my ZFS setup to a smaller cgd disk, I gave legacy mountpoints a try to see how much complexity they add. I have the following ZFS mountpoints in my setup /usr - legacy /var - legacy /var/log - legacy /var/tmp - normal /var/mail - normal ... Ideally, I'd like to keep all datasets under one root: tank/base/usr - legacy tank/base/var - legacy tank/base/var/log - legacy tank/base/var/mail - normal but it has a small inconvenience: every time I add a new dataset under a legacy mountpoint (e.g. create a dataset for /var/spool), it can't inherit a mountpoint from a legacy mountpoint and I have to set it manually (zfs set mountpoint=/var/spool tank/base/var/spool). One way to avoid this issue is to have separate hierarchies: tank/legacy tank/legacy/usr tank/legacy/var tank/legacy/var/log tank/base tank/base/var tank/base/var/mail but I'm pretty sure it has some downsides too. Alex
