From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 2 14:48:45 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5A2B106567D for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2008 14:48:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scode@hyperion.scode.org) Received: from hyperion.scode.org (cl-1361.ams-04.nl.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:960:2:550::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67CF48FC28 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2008 14:48:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scode@hyperion.scode.org) Received: by hyperion.scode.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CF0A523C424; Sun, 2 Nov 2008 15:48:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 15:48:43 +0100 From: Peter Schuller To: John Nielsen Message-ID: <20081102144842.GA59552@hyperion.scode.org> References: <20081101114717.0ffc2ec8@valhala> <200811011517.37640.lists@jnielsen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="huq684BweRXVnRxX" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200811011517.37640.lists@jnielsen.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: Nicolas Martyanoff , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS for a desktop computer X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:48:45 -0000 --huq684BweRXVnRxX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > There are patches available to allow this but frankly I don't see the=20 > appeal. I think it makes much more sense to have / (including /boot) be a= =20 > regular UFS2 filesystem on a small partition. If something goes wrong you= =20 > can boot from a CD or single-user and not have to worry about getting you= r=20 > ZFS pools back online before you can even start troubleshooting the syste= m.=20 FWIW let me just put the vote in there that to me, personally, there is a lot of appeal. For recovery, I don't find minimalistic /:s or fixit CD:s very useful anyway (in fact I don't think I have ever fixed a system that way; if there is some trouble that prevents booting, I tend to end up booting a separate fully installed system from another drive or similar to have full flexibility). If you're using ZFS because you want to avoid certain failure conditions (such as "oh, there was a bad block during reconstruction and my mirror got blown away even though it was a 4-way mirror"), it is nice to have that applied to your *entire* system instead of having a small root partition or boot partition that is somehow exempted. Especially since these are the ones you really need to boot the system. I appreciate that supporting direct booting off of ZFS is not easy to implement, and this is not any kind of complaint. I just want to respond to the claim that there is no appeal to having it supported. I doubt I am alone in thinking it would be great to boot natively off ZFS, even if not every one under the sun agrees :) -- / Peter Schuller PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller ' Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to getpgpkey@scode.org E-Mail: peter.schuller@infidyne.com Web: http://www.scode.org --huq684BweRXVnRxX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkkNvcoACgkQDNor2+l1i303eACdGdJPz0xdMIcZRJACgB26uPT2 Ck0An2m1mYGV0lFZeNLRdZBPJEWifcbd =109P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --huq684BweRXVnRxX--