From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 30 16:03:24 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 701BD6D0 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com (mail-ob0-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B77D1C93 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obfe9 with SMTP id e9so47774656obf.1 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:03:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4f//sFNbirALyA7exG0UQM7BdjAOs2KwnTuxGYxoX1w=; b=X5kXgOZsiIn0ybQBCnIwMwSczdJlRZ9O7Rv24hXqB14FRQ9WRtv0XtpQFcAxnU3x9m 7cdT0UZa9RyG0AHpd+gMRee/A+Tc8REkbq6fM3lmKO5SjlA0Hkcy86zNtZKkfm/VG0ku YxsKYk1fKc/B6k5LHUeY+dnZ7ey9LxJ/dZAUmoSWZrBpZs5eEB9T6rLAVZQzk4nJ2JzL UlyvI2ZLJflfNLUx7mScuJDKkJbebcd4T8YdHlPAzLjoMvTxZ7PtRr/pTzFUkD5sodxg EmiD33gPeL+REKrH60+RszLYfPQvUA69wWiuYhHEBjHjdy0C35S/OGnUoo/cgLxJV867 oT6w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk282e+00+j6PWU6MugeXQUAMiWjwk2Bziaqjf5lj48/VERbUDPm2AVDqayj+mmtL0hyp5X MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.213.70 with SMTP id m67mr3939405oig.26.1430409796586; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.60.226 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:03:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2001:44b8:31b0:aa00:95b1:6cd3:bd95:9d1d] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 02:03:16 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Possible (or smart) to put freebsd-boot on USB stick for root-on-ZFS? From: Jason Birch To: Warren Block Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:03:24 -0000 > > The bootcode changes rarely, and is usually not a problem. Having a > separate, duplicate /boot is sometimes done for geli(8). It's kind of a > pain, because changes must be made in two places. For a mirror with the OS > on it, I'd put a freebsd-boot partition on each drive, manually install the > bootcode to each, and call it good. > Thank you for all your responses and education! This is pretty much how I've attacked the problem. For the record, I actually prepared all of this ahead of time, and then noticed that 10.1's install options actually include ZFS on root, so installation was super simple, and I was able to scrap my preparation ... kind of. Though the maths seems to work out to me, it ends up aligning the freebsd-zfs position 'awkwardly'. In my head I thought it would work okay - 1064 512B blocks is a round 133 4KB blocks, which these SSDs report as their stripe size. Nonetheless, fragmentation of the pool is off the charts... # gpart show -l ada0 ada1 => 34 156301421 ada0 GPT (75G) 34 6 - free - (3.0K) 40 1024 1 gptboot0 (512K) 1064 156300384 2 zfs0 (75G) 156301448 7 - free - (3.5K) => 34 156301421 ada1 GPT (75G) 34 6 - free - (3.0K) 40 1024 1 gptboot1 (512K) 1064 156300384 2 zfs1 (75G) 156301448 7 - free - (3.5K) # zpool status zroot pool: zroot state: ONLINE scan: scrub repaired 0 in 0h3m with 0 errors on Mon Apr 13 00:27:34 2015 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM zroot ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 gpt/zfs0 ONLINE 0 0 0 gpt/zfs1 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # zpool get fragmentation zroot NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE zroot fragmentation 59% - It remains to be seen (to me) if this is a problem or shortcoming of bsdinstall(8), or totally fine and expected behaviour. I'm thought the gap between blocks 1024 and 1064 that aren't reported as "free" as perhaps containing the label for adaXp2, and wondered if that was pushing it out a bit, but they don't seem to contain any bits at all.