Darren,
On 01/19/11 12:00, Darren Kenny wrote:
On 18/01/2011 18:30, Evan Layton wrote:
I think this is pretty confusing without it being explicit. Without the zpool
tag its impossible to tell which pool the disk is in as well as which disks the
pool contains.
For example:
<target>
<disk>
<disk_name name="c3t0d0" name_type="ctd"/>
</disk>
<disk>
<disk_name name="c3t1d0" name_type="ctd"/>
</disk>
<disk>
<disk_name name="c4t0d0" name_type="ctd"/>
</disk>
<disk>
<disk_name name="c4t1d0" name_type="ctd"/>
</disk>
<logical>
<zpool name="rpool" action="create" is_root="true" />
<vdev name="rpool_mirror" redundancy="mirror"/>
</zpool>
<zpool name="tank" action="create" is_root="false" />
<vdev name="tank_mirror" redundancy="mirror"/>
</zpool>
</logical>
</target>
Without the zpool tag in the disk_name there isn't a way to tell which disk is
in which pool. It seems to me that we need this to be an error if the pool isn't
specified as part of the disk_name.
This should be a semantic error. If there is a zpool being defined here then
something should reference it or it's vdevs name.
I don't believe there is a need to specify both zpool and vdev, just one or the
other depending on the use - e.g. if there is only one vdev in a zpool, you can
omit the vdev name and just refer to the pool. If you have name on a vdev, you
I can go along with this, but I'd like to nail down very precisely
what we are going to allow.
Here's where I think we're heading:
- first up, I strongly dislike having the new *attributes* ("zpool" and
"vdev") having the same names as existing *elements*. I'm sure
this must be bad XML practice? I'd much prefer they be called
"zpool_name" and "vdev_name", and I will refer to them as such below.
- if you want a physical device (disk_name, partition, slice) to be
associated
with a zpool, then you must have either the zpool_name and/or vdev_name
attribute: there is no automatic linking up of physical devices to
zpools if neither zpool_name or vdev_name are specified
- you should never need to specify both zpool_name and vdev_name.
if you specify only a zpool_name, there must be exactly one zpool with
that unique name and it must have zero or one vdevs;
if you specify a vdev_name, there must be exactly one vdev with
that unique name
if you specify both, then by implication the zpool_name will be
redundant
- by implication, if a disk does not have either the zpool_name or
vdev_name attributes then either:
- there are no zpools specified in the <logical> section
- the disk has partitions and/or slices specified, and one of those
does have
either zpool_name or vdev_name
(this doesn't apply to "discovered targets", just to the manifest and
the "desired targets")
- vdev names are mandatory and must be unique
- zpool names must be unique (they are already mandatory)
Dermot
can reference it directly, since it should be unique in the whole XML manifest.
Essentially, as long as the zpool or vdev reference is uniquely identifiable,
then all should be ok, but if there is any more than one possible match (e.g.
you specify a zpool but there are two vdevs under it) then it's a failure.
Thanks,
Darren.
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
