[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Mountroot and Bootroot Comparison

Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Mountroot and Bootroot Comparison
From: A Darren Dunham
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:54:21 +0000
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 01:41:32PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > Certainly, many of us will be satisfied with all-in-one pool,
> > just as we are today with all all-in-one filesystem, so this
> > makes sense as a first step.  But, there needs to be the
> > presumption that the next steps towards multiple pool support
> > are possible without having to re-architect or re-design the
> > whole zfs boot system.
> I'm curious as to why you think this (note: I've nothing to do with ZFS
> development).  I understand the need for separate / and /usr in some
> cases, but how does separate / and /usr add value in a ZFS bootroot
> environment?  Is it because one might like to have a very tiny pool
> (e.g., on a USB flashdrive) to contain / and a larger one to contain
> /usr?
> Thinking of ZFS crypto, it might, since one might put / in cleartext on
> a small capacity USB flashdrive, say and keep everything else encrypted.
> But one should want ZFS crypto to protect / as well as everything else
> (/usr and homedirs), and I would hope that when ZFS crypto gets around
> to meeting ZFS bootroot then we'll able to do just that.

I wonder how much this would change if a functional "pivot-root"
mechanism were available.  It be handy nice to boot from flash, import a
pool, then make that the running root.

Does anyone know if that's a target of any OpenSolaris projects?

Darren Dunham                                           [email protected]
Senior Technical Consultant         TAOS            http://www.taos.com/
Got some Dr Pepper?                           San Francisco, CA bay area
         < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >
zfs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>