On 10/3/07, Dave Miner <Dave.Miner at sun.com> wrote: > Brandorr wrote: > > If this is the case, we may want to consider alternate options for > > rollback, as there are applications where one may not want to use ZFS > > as the root filesystem. (Yes there are some). :) > > > > Care to be specific about what you think those are? We've been fairly > explicit all along that ZFS was the only option we were planning to > support installing to, and that's been met with little negative comment, > so I'd like to understand what requirements you have in mind.
One example I am thinking down the road when we have support for flash media optimized filesystems like jffs2. Other examples are NFS mounted root file systems. Finally there is the thought that we will have an option to use UFS or ZFS as the root filesystem down the road. Also remember that the repositories will support third party packages that may install things that are not in the root file system and may lie on a Veritas File System. (I know, I know.) Although Veritas may support snapshots at a volume level, I feel that it would be more useful to code in generic filesystem support rather than code in Veritas snap support. (Many Veritas shops don't even use Volume snaps). > And can you be specific about the rollback you're asking about? Well, in particular, when I update a package(s) or install a package(s), and it breaks something, I would like to be able to rollback that change. One thing to understand, I am not suggesting to avoid using ZFS snaps to provide rollbacks, I am just asking that we make consideration for other filesystems, rather than say, oh this feature needs ZFS. If you are open to this idea, I will start doing a bit of research to see what might be a good approach. > Dave Cheers, Brian -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
