Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:36:47 -0500 From: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> To: Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@koitsu.org> Cc: b.smeelen@ose.nl, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SU+J on 9.1-RC2 ISO Message-ID: <5095B89F.4070705@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20121103190930.GA23145@icarus.home.lan> References: <20121103190930.GA23145@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
There's an existing checkbox to disable it. There was substantial consensus for 9.0 that SUJ was something we wanted -- I'd personally be very hesitant to change the defaults without more input from FS people. I think this discussion should be moved to freebsd-fs@ or freebsd-current@ instead of stable@ since it's actually a filesystem issue not an installer issue. -Nathan On 11/03/12 14:09, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > (Please keep me CC'd, as I'm not subscribed to -stable) > > I've CC'd Nathan Whitehorn, who according to bsdinstall(8) is the > author (not sure if maintainer) of the code. > > This default has already begun to bite users/SAs in the ass: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2012-November/246069.html > > SU+J (the journalling part specifically) needs to be disabled by default > in the installer. This default was a very bad choice and should not > have been done. It either indicates someone was out of touch with the > rest of the issues surrounding the feature, or that someone > intentionally decided "it's the best way to get people using it for > testing" (I have seen this justification presented in the past, and it > is the wrong approach). > > However, since some people DO want it (and those folks don't use dump), > the installer should be modified to make SU+J support toggleable via a a > checkbox. The default, obviously, should be unchecked. > > If the user checks the checkbox, an ominous warning message should be > displayed informing the user of the repercussions. The only option at > that point should be "OK", after which the checkbox is checked. > > Do not tell me "send patches". This issue/problem has gone on long > enough, and the community bitched hard/long enough, that the person who > committed this default should be responsible for fixing it. > > We should operate under the assumption that this bug/problem will never > be fixed. It probably will be, but again, we must operate with the > assumption that Kirk et al will require years to fix it. (It has > already been something like 9 months. Or is it a year?) > > While I'm here -- does anyone remember the exact commit which was done > sometime in the past 6-9 months which "made the installer work properly > with SSDs" (re: partition alignment)? I have questions about that; if I > remember right, someone set the alignment size to 4KBytes, and that is > completely 100% wrong -- it needs to be 1MByte or 2MBytes if you want to > be extra cautious, which correlates with NAND erase block size, > otherwise we're not really solving jack squat. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5095B89F.4070705>