From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Wed Jun 1 15:40:46 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336FAB617F6 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 15:40:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@bec.de) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2A101C58 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 15:40:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@bec.de) Received: from britannica.bec.de (p20030057E2138604050FB0D91903B4F3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:57:e213:8604:50f:b0d9:1903:b4f3]) (Authenticated sender: joerg@bec.de) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D35E71720C2 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:40:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:40:41 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: EFI GELI support ready for testers Message-ID: <20160601154041.GC17357@britannica.bec.de> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <519CC1FC-84DF-4710-8E62-AF26D8AED2CF@metricspace.net> <20160528083656.GT38613@kib.kiev.ua> <20160528172618.GB38613@kib.kiev.ua> <6A9DADE0-B214-424A-BB14-0B0848F0D08D@metricspace.net> <20160529091827.GD38613@kib.kiev.ua> <46B3F9E2-A25B-4F9D-B35F-11AC782495B1@metricspace.net> <20160601144738.GA14531@britannica.bec.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 15:40:46 -0000 On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 08:25:32AM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 04:29:16PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > > It's undesirable because the whole point of ZFS is to have one ZFS > > > > volume for the whole system. > > > This sounds more like a religious dogma than anything else. > > > > If "ZFS volume" means "ZFS pool" here, it is also blatant bullshit. > > There are a lot of reasons for having more than one ZFS pool, the > > easiest being separating SSDs and HDDs for fast vs cheap storage. > > > > No one is saying you can't have multiple ZFS pools in a system. For > example, there's nothing wrong with having a "system" pool where the OS is > installed (say, on SSD), and a "storage" pool where all your data goes > (say, on a dozen hard drives). > > But, in order to properly support ZFS Boot Environments, you *NEED* to have > /boot as a directory on the / (root) filesystem in a ZFS pool. I am fully aware of that. It is also quite different from what Wojciech wrote. As such, Alan, just go on... Joerg