From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Jun 10 15:54:31 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE413382A6 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:54:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca) Received: from mx32.harte-lyne.ca (mx32.harte-lyne.ca [216.185.71.32]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mx32.harte-lyne.ca", Issuer "CA_HLL_ISSUER_2016" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hs4Q4hpRz4BY1 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:54:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca) Received: from mx32.harte-lyne.ca (localhost [127.0.32.1]) by mx32.harte-lyne.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED8E2EA24 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:54:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at harte-lyne.ca Received: from mx32.harte-lyne.ca ([127.0.32.1]) by mx32.harte-lyne.ca (mx32.harte-lyne.ca [127.0.32.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GpFa0mHyNldj for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from webmail.harte-lyne.ca (webmail.hamilton.harte-lyne.ca [216.185.71.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx32.harte-lyne.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D5652EA19 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 216.185.71.44 (SquirrelMail authenticated user byrnejb_hll) by webmail.harte-lyne.ca with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:54:27 -0400 Message-ID: <69ee92064444771e23d47418afad2f3e.squirrel@webmail.harte-lyne.ca> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:54:27 -0400 Subject: Q. re: zfs clones and promote From: "James B. Byrne" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Reply-To: byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49hs4Q4hpRz4BY1 X-Spamd-Bar: ----- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.52 / 15.00]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:216.185.71.0/26]; REPLYTO_ADDR_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCVD_DKIM_ARC_DNSWL_MED(-0.50)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[216.185.71.32:from]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[harte-lyne.ca:+]; HAS_X_PRIO_THREE(0.00)[3]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.82)[-0.819]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[harte-lyne.ca,quarantine]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:12021, ipnet:216.185.64.0/20, country:CA]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.02)[-1.017]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[harte-lyne.ca:s=dkim_hll]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.99)[-0.987]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; DWL_DNSWL_LOW(-1.00)[harte-lyne.ca:dkim] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:54:31 -0000 I am working on a clone of a template jail in IOCAGE. My thoughts were tht if things go horribly wrong then I can simply remove the clone and start again from the template. If things work out then I can promote the clone. However, I am not clear on the implications of promote. I just want to go thorugh this so that any misapprehension that I have can be corrected: 1. A thick jail (X) is created via iocage. 2. Jail X is started, has a specific suit of packages installed, and is stopped. 3. Jail Xc is cloned from X. 4. Jail Xc is started, additional packages added and configured, setup as desired for its intended purpose, and stopped. Now, I read this in the zfs man page: The clone parent-child dependency relationship can be reversed by using the promote subcommand. This causes the "origin" file system to become a clone of the specified file system, which makes it possible to destroy the file system that the clone was created from. The way that this is worded can be interpreted that Xc becomes the file system and X the clone of Xc, which can then be destroyed. What I wish to have is both X and Xc as independent zfs file systems. Is this not possible using promote or must I use zfs send to obtain this result? -- *** e-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** Do NOT transmit sensitive data via e-Mail Do NOT open attachments nor follow links sent by e-Mail James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3