Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 08 Aug 2016 16:45:49 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 211361] suggested boot partition size is too small, bsdinstall creates unaligned partitions
Message-ID:  <bug-211361-8-UQMZ9QuTDX@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-211361-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-211361-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D211361

--- Comment #11 from Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to Dag-Erling Sm=C3=83=C2=B8rgrav from comment #10)

Sure, but the *policy* shouldn't be in the installer, but in the userland t=
ools
that it wraps. Otherwise, the default behavior of the installer is "correct=
",
but file systems created with ZFS will have the wrong IO size, partitions a=
dded
with gpart will have the wrong alignment, etc.

The installer is supposed to be an extremely thin wrapper around the normal
userland tools: it's a bare front-end for gpart, newfs, and tar. If we have=
 bad
defaults in those tools, the problem should be fixed there rather than addi=
ng
magic to the installer to "fix" defaults that we control. sysinstall did th=
is
rampantly and it was terrible; it made divergences between different method=
s of
installing the system and made new users go back to the installer to do thi=
ngs
and hose their systems thereby.

If we don't want the kernel to guess, and don't want the base userland tool=
s to
guess, I would have no objections to some global tunable or something set by
the user that tells GEOM to round up to some value for stripe size, or an
additional GEOM property (recommended IO size), or some system setting that
suggests a minimum IO size and alignment to all userland tools. These could=
 be
adopted universally and don't result in anything "lying". If any of those
solutions are too much to get done in time for the 11 release, I also would=
n't
object to a direct commit of your patch to stable/11 as a stopgap. But, bey=
ond
that, modifying the installer to work around bad defaults in the operating
system generally is a bad idea and a road we should not go down.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-211361-8-UQMZ9QuTDX>