Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:30:14 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GSoC Project Involving the reimplementation of beadm(1) Message-ID: <20170222103014.GE15630@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <20170221132000.GA11545@tomoyat1.com> References: <20170220131509.GA31623@tomoyat1.com> <20170220134910.GC15630@zxy.spb.ru> <20170221132000.GA11545@tomoyat1.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:20:00PM +0900, Tomoya Tabuchi wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:49:10PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:15:09PM +0900, Tomoya Tabuchi wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I am interested in doing a GSoC project this year with the idea "Write a > > > new boot environment manager" on the ideas list. > > > (https://wiki.freebsd.org/SummerOfCodeIdeas#Write_a_new_boot_environment_manager) > > > > > > I would like to ask a few questions involving this. > > > First, is there a particular reason why this project is listed in the > > > ideas list? Aside the fact the current implementation in sh is rather > > > complicated, I was unable to come up with a reason to justify the > > > reimplementation. > > > > > > Second, is making the new implmentation of beadm(1) platform independent > > > and promoting it across the various OpenZFS implmentation / communities > > > as some sort of "standard" implmentation a good idea, or is it > > > over-zealous / outside of the project scope / intrusive to other > > > projects. > > > > > > As for a late self introduction, my name is Tomoya Tabuchi, and I am a > > > undergraduate student at Doshisha University in Japan. I will start my > > > third year in university in April. > > > > Don't know about link above. For me, current beadm have some leaks: > > > > 1. Don't check cosistency before applay: > > I am try to enable beadm on 10.1 install and switch to 11.0. > > fail. > That is interesting. I'll try and see if I can reproduce that, and > observe what's going on. This is may be involved by outdated /etc/rc.d/zfs from 10.1 or by different ZFS layout in 10.1. (how to update by beadm: beadm create NEW beadm mount NEW /mnt cd /mnt find -x . -flags +schg | xargs chflags noschg unpack new binaries cd / beadm umount NEW beadm activate NEW AFTER REBOOT: etcupdate -t etcupdate.tar i.e. new version boot w/ old /etc/rc.d In may case I am see multiple mounted datesets w/ same mount points and lack of /dev For 10.2 and later -- OK. > > 2. Need to control what put under beadm. > Does this mean to hold back on feature bloat, or to distinguish between > ZFS clones created by beadm and ones that were not? If you mean the > latter, I'll take a look at the current behaviour when manually created ZFS > clones are involved. Yes, but this is not intuitive. I am about more friendly from beadm, i.e. for example: beadm showcontrol -- show path beadmed beadm takecontrol -- do some path beadmed beadm releasecontrol -- reverse yes, in many cases need addtional confiramtions for split datasets and move some files between. and warning about inconsistency old.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170222103014.GE15630>