On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 19:35, Chuck Silvers <c...@chuq.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:13:03AM +0000, David Brownlee wrote: > > It looks like that between netbsd-9 and netbsd-10 the order of ZFS > > mounts vs fstab has changed. > > > > I've just upgraded a system which had ffs filesystems for / & /home, > > and a zfs pool on /home/files > > > > Before the upgrade the mount order was > > > > / (ffs) > > /home (ffs) > > /home/files (zfs) > > > > after upgrade the exact same configuration gives: > > > > / (ffs) > > /home/files (zfs) > > /home (ffs) > > > > resulting in /home/files being inaccessible. I'm not saying the new > > order is wrong, it's just likely to break any existing configuration > > which has a zfs mount on top of a non root filesystem in ffs... > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts on the best approach? - a note in > > NetBSD-10 release notes and fstab/zfs manpage? > > > > David > > there's not really any defined order between ZFS mounting its file systems > and the rc scripts mounting non-ZFS file systems. > > ZFS by default kind of assumes that it is managing all fs mounts and > so it doesn't need to coordinate with anything non-ZFS to avoid this > kind of problem. the opt-out for this is to set the ZFS file system's > "mountpoint" property to "legacy", and then ZFS won't mount it automatically > and you can mount that specific ZFS fs via /etc/fstab to control the > ordering the old fashioned way.
I'll definitely agree that both the netbsd-9 and netbsd-10 orders are "reasonable", it's only the fact that it has changed that is an issue. I'd suggest it might be worth a note in a manpage (fstab?) and the netbsd-10 upgrade notes David
