[I've redirected replies to this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] since all of this is about ZFS, please respect the Reply-To header].
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:37, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > The "simplicity" of administration has it's drawbacks at the points where > > > ZFS in incompatible with the UNIX philosohy (mount handling) and causes > > > extra > > > effort in order to make it usable for e.g. the SchillIX life CD. > > > > Thats what legacy mount points are for. > > Maybe I did not yet grok them, could you help me please? Did you read Section 5.5.1.2 Legacy Mount Points in the ZFS docs ? > > To me the old UNIX mount handling is even more broken than rc.local or > > sysvinit was and ZFS is to the old UNIX mount handling what SMF is to > > rc.local ans sysvinit. > > Mmm, why? The requirement to edit a root owned file /etc/vfstab. This means it is very difficult to securely hand out the ability to change mount time options of individual filesystems and the ability to add but not remove filesystems at certain points in the hierarchy. For example if ZFS used the legacy mounting style we would likely have had mount(1m) (and thus /etc/vfstab entries) for compression, hash algorithm etc etc. Now add in to that the /etc/dfs/dfstab has exactly the same problem for sharing filesystems out. The first baby step has been made with ZFS, you give the filesystem admin the "ZFS File System Management" RBAC profile. Note that this is only the first baby step and more fine grained control will be coming in the future (can't say when yet though). -- Darren J Moffat _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
