On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:17:50AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
>
> ZFS is already architecturally unclean, in that it means that
> /etc/fstab no longer describes the set of standardly mounted
> filesystems. (I was not aware of this property of ZFS; I find it
> astonishing - and depressing - that nobody b
>> ZFS is already architecturally unclean, in that it means that
>> /etc/fstab no longer describes the set of standardly mounted
>> filesystems. (I was not aware of this property of ZFS; [...].)
> [Y]ou can set a property on the file system not to automatically
> mount and perform a "legacy" mount
On 3/17/2022 5:52 AM, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> Does anyone actually do this -- have local mounts on top of remote
mounts?
> I keep hearing about the theoretical possibility of /usr on nfs and
/usr/src or /usr/local on local ffs.
Not directly relevant to NetBSD, but the standard (IIRC) set
> Does anyone actually do this -- have local mounts on top of remote
> mounts?
At the moment I don't, but I have in the past and have no real doubt I
will in the future.
> I keep hearing about the theoretical possibility of /usr on nfs and
> /usr/src or /usr/local on local ffs.
Back when I worke
On 3/17/22 15:17, Mouse wrote:
3. Move all ZFS mounts to /etc/rc.d/mountcritlocal .
3 is the only thing here I object to because it is architecturally
unclean, giving special semantics to zfs.
ZFS is already architecturally unclean, in that it means that
/etc/fstab no longer describes the set
>> 3. Move all ZFS mounts to /etc/rc.d/mountcritlocal .
> 3 is the only thing here I object to because it is architecturally
> unclean, giving special semantics to zfs.
ZFS is already architecturally unclean, in that it means that
/etc/fstab no longer describes the set of standardly mounted
files
>> This is possible for only a restricted set of services (those that
>> are at least conceptually datagram services, more or less).
> I don't think it precludes tcp as long as they are stateless - http
> is an obvious example
Ish. HTTP is stateless in the sense that consecutive
requests/response
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:52:03PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> Does anyone actually do this -- have local mounts on top of remote
> mounts?
I do, but all machines affected have / on NFS which makes the setup
trivial.
Martin
Taylor R Campbell writes:
>> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:32:40 -0400
>> From: Greg Troxel
>>
>> Simon Burge writes:
>>
>> > 5. Move all local mounts to /etc/rc.d/mountcritlocal (ala
>> > FreeBSD) and possibly rename this to /etc/rc.d/mountlocal .
>>
>> I think the only thing we lose with
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:32:40 -0400
> From: Greg Troxel
>
> Simon Burge writes:
>
> > 5. Move all local mounts to /etc/rc.d/mountcritlocal (ala
> > FreeBSD) and possibly rename this to /etc/rc.d/mountlocal .
>
> I think the only thing we lose with this is the ability to mount local
>
Simon Burge writes:
> Lots of interesting discussion! Thanks all.
As a loud ranter I'll comment briefly but thanks for the summary and I
think we're heading for a good place.
> Broadly I think I can summarise to the following options:
>
> 1. The existing critical_filesystems_zfs rc.conf vari
Lots of interesting discussion! Thanks all.
Broadly I think I can summarise to the following options:
1. The existing critical_filesystems_zfs rc.conf variable, which
mixes ZFS configuration in both rc.conf and with ZFS itself.
2. Add ZFS "critical" properties for filesystems and mount tho
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 04:58:56PM +1030, Brett Lymn wrote:
> Perhaps a shim program that manages a socket between it and the
> underlying daemon - the shim can talk to inetd to coordinate the handoff
> of an incoming connection and also being put back onto the idle pool
> when the connection close
13 matches
Mail list logo
