Richard Elling writes:
> > I've found out what the problem was: I didn't specify the -F zfs option to
> > installboot, so only half of the ZFS bootblock was written. This is a
> > combination of two documentation bugs and a terrible interface:
> >
>
> Mainly because there is no -F option?
Huh? From /usr/sbin/installboot:
COUNT=15
while getopts F: a; do
case $a in
F) case $OPTARG in
ufs) COUNT=15;;
hsfs) COUNT=15;;
zfs) COUNT=31;;
*) away 1 "$OPTARG: Unknown fstype";;
esac;;
Without -F zfs, only part of the zfs bootblock would be copied.
> I think that it should be very unusual that installboot would be run
> interactively. That is really no excuse for making it only slightly
Indeed: it should mostly be run behind the scenes e.g. by live upgrade, but
obviously there are scenarios where it is necessary (like this one).
> smarter than dd, but it might be hard to justify changes unless some
> kind person were to submit a bug with an improved implementation
> (would make a good short project for someone :-)
The problem here might be that an improved implementation would probably
mean an incompatible change (like doing away with the explicit bootblk
argument).
Unfortunately, I've too many other issues on my plate right now to attack
this one.
Rainer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
