Nicolas Williams wrote: > 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? >
Not a sufficient reason. Crypto policy is a data set (file system/zvol) policy not a storage pool policy. The question of why to have different storage pools has still not been satisfactorily addressed. Methinks people are still confusing pools and data sets. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
