In message <201902261659.x1qgxkl0046...@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net>, "Rodney W. Gri mes" writes: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:14 AM Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@cschubert.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On February 26, 2019 7:48:27 AM PST, Cy Schubert < > > > cy.schub...@cschubert.com> wrote: > > > >On February 26, 2019 12:18:35 AM PST, Baptiste Daroussin > > > ><b...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > [trimming the unneeded pile of commit body] > > > > > > > >This broke my systems, many filesystems fail to mount causing nullfs > > > >late mounts to fail. No details now until tonight. > > > > > > > >Suggest we back this out until it is properly tested. > > > > > > Nested zfs filesystems seem not to be handled properly or possibly not > > > supported any more. This explains my mail gateway also not mounting all > > > filesystems in /home. It was odd that dovecot stopped working. > > > > > > The symptom of the problem is zfs mount -a no longer mounts all > > > filesystems. Zfs mount fails saying the filesystem is already mounted. Th > e > > > workaround is to zfs umount each affected zfs dataset by hand and zfs mou > nt > > > it by hand. > > > > > > Generally this has screwed up sites that have hundreds (in my case 122) > > > zfs datasets. The work around might be to script testing each mount, > > > unmounting and remounting if necessary. > > > > > > I'm being sarcastic about creating an rc script to clean this up. This > > > needs to be backed out and tested properly before being committed. > > > > > > > > I don't know what you mean by "nested zfs filesystems" -- do you mean a > > zpool within a zvol? > > That has been unsupported for a long time, IIRC. And > That had better not be unsupported, that is the prefered technology > for all of the virtualization stuff, bhyve, virtualbox, qemu, etc. > > I think by nested zfs it sounds like he is talking about datasets > inside of other datasets just from reading "all filesystems in /home" > > > > I'm not sure what else "nested filesystems" would be, since having (e.g.) > > separate zfs filesystems for /usr and /usr/ports is so common that surely > > it has already been tested... > > It might be when the intervening dataset is marked canmount=off? > Though that should fail for the /usr /usr/foo case, as usr is normally > marked this way. Maybe some other special case.
I do have some mountpoint=none datasets with mountpoint=/somewhere-else. My tank/var tree is a good example of the complete mix using none, legacy and specified mountpoints. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <c...@freebsd.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few. _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
