Rainer, Sorry for your trouble.
I'm updating the installboot example in the ZFS Admin Guide with the -F zfs syntax now. We'll fix the installboot man page as well. Mark, I don't have an x86 system to test right now, can you send me the correct installgrub syntax for booting a ZFS file system? Thanks, Cindy Rainer Orth wrote: > Rainer Orth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>>instlalboot on the new disk and see if that fixes it. >> >>Unfortunately, it didn't. Reconsidering now, I see that I ran installboot >>against slice 0 (reduced by 1 sector as required by CR 6680633) instead of >>slice 2 (whole disk). Doing so doesn't fix the problem either, though. > > > I've found out what the problem was: I didn't specify the -F zfs option to > installboot, so only half of the ZFS bootblock was written. This is a > combination of two documentation bugs and a terrible interface: > > * With the introduction of zfs boot, installboot got a new -F <fstype> > option. Unfortunately, this is documented neither on installboot(1M) > (which wasn't update at all, it seems) nor in the ZFS Admin Guide > (p.80, workaround for CR 6668666). > > * Apart from that, I've never understood why it is necessary to specify the > full path to the bootblock to installboot like this > > installboot /usr/platform/`uname -i`/lib/fs/<fstype>/bootblk > /dev/rdsk/c0t0d0s0 > > It would be far easier to just specify the fstype (or even let > installboot figure that out by itself using fstyp) than having to give > the full pathname. In that case, installboot could just dd the whole > bootblk file instead of hardcoding the block counts for the different > filesystem types (probably to avoid corrupting the filesystem if the user > gives a file that is not a bootblock). > > Overall, a terrible mess ;-( > > Regards. > Rainer > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
