Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 14:11:39 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: avg@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Bug 209096] zfsroot bricked on 10.3-RELEASE Message-ID: <20160804134452.W1209@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <bug-209096-3630-OpV0EZi8uu@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-209096-3630@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> <bug-209096-3630-OpV0EZi8uu@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 a bug that doesn't want replies@freebsd.org wrote: > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209096 > > --- Comment #35 from Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> --- > (In reply to Daniel Ylitalo from comment #33) > Hmm, so it seems that lsdev -v does not report the disk size as I've expected. > So it's not that useful :-( > > BTW, it seems that you are still using a single huge partition for ZFS... > If you split it into the under 2TB and above 2TB partitions, then you could > easily test the theory by making the >2TB partition a root ZFS pool and > checking if you can boot to it. Old BIOSes break at 128GB. Of course, you shouldn't use zfs on systems with such a small limit. I have a 10 year old laptop, which is not very old for me. Changing its disk from 100 GB to 750 GB worked well except when I tried to move partitions above the 128GB boundary on it. This was confusing, although I have a lot of experience keeping partitions below 8GB so that they were bootable with the 1989 boot0 that I used to use, and had rewritten this boot0 to remove its limit, and was switching systems to use it. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160804134452.W1209>