From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon May 14 07:07:15 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 680)
	id 0EF1416A406; Mon, 14 May 2007 07:07:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:07:15 +0000
From: Darren Reed <darrenr@hub.freebsd.org>
To: Ali Mashtizadeh <mashtizadeh@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070514070715.GA82322@hub.freebsd.org>
References: <20070409011723.GB74547@garage.freebsd.pl>
	<20070409094319.GB76673@garage.freebsd.pl>
	<70e8236f0704090808y5d305175wdc3cee5be1a26a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070409153338.GH76673@garage.freebsd.pl>
	<440b3e930705131031v5e97db7fq486d8d17aeb9f622@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <440b3e930705131031v5e97db7fq486d8d17aeb9f622@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Joao Barros <joao.barros@gmail.com>,
	freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: ZFS: amd64, devd, root file system.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:07:15 -0000

> On 4/9/07, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> wrote:
...
> >The biggest problem I see is lack of motivation on my side. Really. Why
> >someone would like to keep kernel on ZFS so much? This would be a huge
> >amount of work, I expect, and what we get in turn? On Solaris you can
> >only boot from a single-disk pool or from a mirrored pool. Is it really
> >worth the effort for us? I much more prefer to spend the time working on
> >something more useful than that and keep my small /boot/ file system
> >protected by gmirror on UFS - with this approach there are no
> >limitations - we can keep our root file system on compressed RAID-Z
> >pool.

Pawel, to answer your question...

It is not a lot of fun having to support the kernel and 'some'
filesystems being of a different type of filesystem to other parts
(from a system admin perspective.)  This is especially true of those
filesystems that make up the "root".

ZFS also raises another issue: why wouldn't you want the same data
reliability for your root/boot volumes as for your data?

I understand that you may not have enough drive/desire to do the
work, but don't understate the value of having all your filesystems
being of one type, especially if it means your root volume is dynamic
in size.

Darren