Sarah Jelinek wrote: > Hi Evan, > >> Hi Sarah, >> >> I'm a bit slow getting back to you... >> > No worries.. I am slow getting back to you too :-). > >> 1.4 and 1.7 isn't a BE just another version of an installed instance? >> I was thinking that 1.7 should be under 1.4 and that we may want to >> point out that there is a requirement on beadm/libbe for validaty >> chekcing for the BE. >> > hmm... that's interesting. Well, the way I was thinking about this is > that we could have an empty BE. Without a zpool or an instance of > OpenSolaris, right? Is this possible? Is it worth finding?
While it's possible to create an empty set of datasets that can be installed into (using be_init in libbe) it doesn't seem that it's a valid BE until it has bits in it. Currently there is no way to have an empty BE without at least an existing root zpool. I guess since it is possible to create an empty set of datasets that correspond to a BE we could think of it as something different. What I was thinking is that beadm/libbe should also be doing at least some validation of BE's to insure that they are real BE's. While we don't do that now we should only be thinking of BE's in terms of having valid bits in them. > > >> 1.5.c "zpool datasets" should probably be "zfs filesystems on the zpool." >> > I put datasets since they are called datasets. To distinguish them from > the filesystems, such as UFS. Ok I that makes since. Maybe use ZFS datasets instead of zpool datasets? > >> 1.6 may be the same kind of thing as 1.7? >> > How are they the same? Can't we have zones in a BE? So, would we want to > find what zones their might be? > I was thinking more that a zone was another form of installed instance of OpenSolaris but yes a BE can have multiple non-global zones in it. Based on this yes we would want to find all the BE's, all the non-global zones within each BE and all the zones BE's for each zone. I guess these are all installed instances however they are very different in how they are accessed so what you had may be more correct then what I was thinking. -evan > > thanks, > sarah > **** >> 2.9 Ethan already mentioned this one... >> >> thanks, >> -evan >> >> Sarah Jelinek wrote: >>> Please review and provide comments by COB Wed, 6/17. >>> >>> thanks, >>> sarah >>> **** >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I have posted a set of requirements defined for the Caiman unified >>>> engine. They are located at: >>>> >>>> http://opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/CUD/cud_req.txt >>>> >>>> There are some more details that need to be added, specifically with >>>> regard to observability requirements. A lot of that depends on the >>>> consumers of the unified engine. Along with the error handling section. >>>> >>>> Please review and send comments. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> sarah >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >> >
