Hi Niall,
On 27/01/2011 06:57, Niall Power wrote:
> Hi Drew,
>
> These questions are targeted at the wider audience, not just specifically you
> :-)
>
> Just a couple of questions regarding BEs. Sorry I have not responded sooner.
> It is not clear to me at this point what the intended use for the BE element
> is.
>From the CUD meeting last week (and I know I didn't minute this point and
should have) it was mentioned that the BE tag was used to provide a name for
the new BE created during the install - if "solaris" isn't what you want.
I don't believe it was used for anything else, but you raise some good
points...
> If I want to determine the root filesystem, ie 'the '/' mounted
> filesysetm of the boot environment how do I go about determining this?
> Should I use the libbe ctype to extract further info? Are there scenarios
> where this could be different than what the transfer module will install to
> as the root of the new system/environment?
It would be useful for installers to be able to mount this BE and unmount this
BE by specifying the mountpoint to use in the Data Object - it doesn't have to
be in the XML representation.
e.g.
new_be.mountpoint = "/a"
which can be added by an application after the manifest is read in, but before
we run the TI checkpoint.
Or alternatively, we don't care about it - just to be able to mount and
unmount it, and the various other checkpoints that case about it could look up
where it's mounted...
>
> Also any idea on how I might figure out where the root filesystem of the
> about to be installed system is and where it is temporarily mounted at? I
> presume the transfer module is going to need this info also.
Yep, this is needed for transfer - right now I'm going through the Software
nodes and setting the destination reference to "/a", which was mounted/created
when I specified a zfs datasets mountpoint.
But, as you are saying we need to be able to create the BE and then
mount it automatically on creation so the subsequent checkpoints are able to
know where they need to transfer or configure, etc.
>
> WRT to placing the BE element directly under the Zpool element, I wonder
> would it be more concise association to place it under a Filesystem element
> instead?
Yes and no - since you don't have to specify a zpool element at all, then I
think it should be ok to be able to have the BE name specified independently.
Thanks,
Darren.
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
