On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:44:21AM -0700, John Plocher wrote: > Lori Alt wrote: > > I'm not surprised that having /usr in a separate pool failed. > > The design of zfs boot largely assumes that root, /usr, and > > /var are all on the same pool, and it is unlikely that we would > > do the work to support any other configuration any time soon. > > > This seems, uhm, undesirable. I could understand if the initial > *implementation* chose to make these simplifying assumptions, but > if the *architecture* or *design* of the feature requires this, > then, IMO, this project needs a TCR to not be done that way. > > Certainly, many of us will be satisfied with all-in-one pool, > just as we are today with all all-in-one filesystem, so this > makes sense as a first step. But, there needs to be the > presumption that the next steps towards multiple pool support > are possible without having to re-architect or re-design the > whole zfs boot system.
I'm curious as to why you think this (note: I've nothing to do with ZFS development). I understand the need for separate / and /usr in some cases, but how does separate / and /usr add value in a ZFS bootroot environment? Is it because one might like to have a very tiny pool (e.g., on a USB flashdrive) to contain / and a larger one to contain /usr? Thinking of ZFS crypto, it might, since one might put / in cleartext on a small capacity USB flashdrive, say and keep everything else encrypted. But one should want ZFS crypto to protect / as well as everything else (/usr and homedirs), and I would hope that when ZFS crypto gets around to meeting ZFS bootroot then we'll able to do just that. So assuming that ZFS crypto and bootroot will eventually play very well together, what value is there to having / and /usr on separate pools, or even separate datasets, in a ZFS bootroot environment? Nico -- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
