On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 14:29 -0600, Lori Alt wrote: > Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > > IMHO, there should be no need to put any ZFS filesystems in /etc/vfstab, > > but (this is something of a digression based on discussion kicked up by > > PSARC 2007/297) it's become clear to me that ZFS filesystems *should* be > > mounted by mountall and mount -a rather than via a special-case > > invocation of "zfs mount" at the end of the fs-local method script. > > > > in other words: teach "mount" how to find the list of filesystems in > > attached pools and mix them in to the dependency graph it builds to > > mount filesystems in the right order, rather than mounting > > everything-but-zfs first and then zfs later. > > > > > > > I agree with this. This seems like a necessary response to > both PSARC/2007/297 and also necessary for eliminating > legacy mounts for zfs root file systems. The problem of > the interaction between legacy and non-legacy mounts will just > get worse once we are using non-legacy mounts for the > file systems in the BE.
Could we also look into why system-console insists on waiting for ALL the zfs mounts to be available? Shouldn't the main file system food groups be mounted and then allow console-login (much like single user or safe-mode)? Would help in many cases where an admin needs to work on a system but doesn't need, say 20k users home directories mounted, to do this work. > > Lori > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Mike Dotson _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
