Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:31:09 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alexander Kabaev <kan@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ZFS: i/o error - all block copies unavailable after upgrading to r225312 Message-ID: <20110911113109.GA81577@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <4E6C71FA.50906@FreeBSD.org> References: <20110901223646.14b8aae8@o2.pl> <4E60DBBD.1040703@FreeBSD.org> <4E679D3D.1000007@FreeBSD.org> <4E6B1285.70508@FreeBSD.org> <4E6B1AD4.6080206@FreeBSD.org> <4E6B320A.4090606@FreeBSD.org> <20110910110310.GA6263@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4E6C71FA.50906@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--DocE+STaALJfprDB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011-Sep-11 11:31:54 +0300, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >And I am actually wondering about -fno-unit-at-a-time option. >In my opinion this is an anti-optimization option and it can actually incr= ease >a size of a final binary. In fact, it looks like the option was introduce= d to >boot2 in r132870 in the year 2004, way before GCC 4.X switch, and it was >introduced to avoid some optimizations that produced broken code. >I wonder if there is any reason to keep using that option now. In any case, size isn't an issue for any of gptboot, gptzfsboot or zfsboot (unlike boot2). For that matter, why do we need both gptboot and gptzfsboot? It would be more convenient to have a single GPT bootstrap that handled both UFS & ZFS. --=20 Peter Jeremy --DocE+STaALJfprDB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk5sm/0ACgkQ/opHv/APuIcyWwCfbdxvDaI8zXk3L1w/hdP80Na6 wvQAoIy9I0uo8zGSl1UVKkU6CnEZU/o4 =3x7/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DocE+STaALJfprDB--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110911113109.GA81577>