On 01/14/11 04:23 PM, Alok Aggarwal wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Drew Fisher wrote:
In above example you specify Slice 0 of disk c3t0d0 being in
zpool "rpool" yet you specify slice 1 of the same disk being
part of zpool "tank", is this a typo or intentional, as I'm not
even sure this is possible.
I think that if you just had zpools named "rpool" and "tank", it certainly
possible.� I don't know if the root pool commonly called "rpool" requires
the whole boot disk or not though.� I didn't think it did.� What I posted
above was intentional to show how different slices could be assigned to the
same pool.
I don't believe it is required for "rpool" to reside on
an entire disk. The text installer for example allows rpool
to reside on a slice and that works just fine.
The root pool always resides on a slice right now, since booting
requires a VTOC. We just implicitly create a slice under the covers
when whole disks are provided.
Under<logical> would it be a requirement to always have at
least one<zpool> where is_root="true" ?
Are we still supporting UFS root?� If so, then no it's not a requirement.�
We don't support UFS root in our installers today.
If not, then yes.� The clients (AI / GUI installer / etc.) could also add
some logic behind this to ensure a least one zpool has is_root="true"
I agree that the logic to ensure atleast one zpool has
is_root="true" should be in the installers and shouldn't
even be exposed at the schema level.
Agreed.
Dave
Alok
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
