On Oct 13, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Bruce Chapman wrote:
ZFS is supposed to be much easier to use than UFS.
For creating a filesystem, I agree it is, as I could do that easily
without a man page.
However, I found it rather surprising that I could not see the
physical device(s) a zfs filesystem was attached to using either
"df" command (that shows physical device mount points for all other
file systems), or even the "zfs" command.
Even going to "zpool" command it took a few minutes to finally
stumble across the only two commands that will give you that
information, as it is not exactly intuitive.
Ideally, I'd think "df" should show physical device connections of
zfs pools, though I can imagine there may be some circumstances
where that is not desirable so perhaps a new argument would be
needed to specify if that detail is shown or not.
How is this different from, say, SVM and its representation of
metadevices? You don't see the underlying slices which make up md's
in df output... those are abstracted away. ZFS in not different from
this on a conceptual level here.
Just like you would use 'metastat -c' to see the underlying physical
devices there, you would use 'zpool status' in ZFS. Your example 'zfs
list -v' command would essentially be redundant in the face of the
existing 'zpool status' anyway...
/dale
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
