On 4/24/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With reference to Lori's blog posting[1] I'd like to throw out a few of my thoughts on spliting up the namespace.
Just a plea with my sysadmin hat on - please don't go overboard and make new filesystems just because we can. Each extra filesystem generates more work for the administrator, if only for the effort to parse df output (which is more than cluttered enough already). In other words, let people have a system with just one filesystem.
I think we have lots of options but it might be nice to come up with a short list of special/important directories that would should always recommend be separate datasets -
If there is such a list, explain *why*, so that admins can make informed choices. Or maybe even restructure the filesystem layout so that directories with common properties could live under a common parent that could be a separate filesystem rather than creating separate filesystems for each?
lets not hardcode that into the installer though (heck we still think /usr/openwin is special !)
Ugh, yes!
One of the things I'm really interested in seeing is more appropriate sharing with Zones because we have more flexibility in the installer as it becomes zone aware. What I'd love to see is that we completely abandon the package based boundaries for Zones and instead use one based only on the actual filesystem namespace and use Zones to get the best out of that.
Agreed, zones based on packaging causes too much pain all round. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
