Le Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 05:14:51PM -0400, Mouse a écrit :
> > I always wondered---as for '/'---if, for consistency, there should
> > not be a "kernel root", i.e. a filesystem linked to the kernel and
> > with the essential utilities, this minimal system being in fact what
> > an administrator
> I always wondered---as for '/'---if, for consistency, there should
> not be a "kernel root", i.e. a filesystem linked to the kernel and
> with the essential utilities, this minimal system being in fact what
> an administrator deals with, including for remote administration,
> when going single
Le Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:41:36PM -0400, Mouse a écrit :
>
>
> [...] The biggest issues I
> would expect to have are the ones surrounding dealing with / (and any
> other mountpoints needed for this - I'd be inclined to require that the
> binaries involved be on /). I suspect / may have to
>> Getting even more radical (and intrusive to the status quo), I would
>> suggest having _all_ fsck and mount runs happening in the
>> background, with other rc stuff delaying until the filesystem(s)
>> needed is/are mounted. (Figuring out how to handle / would be one
>> of the interesting
Hi :)
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 09:21:26AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> Another option might be for all optional systems to be fscked and
> mounted in the background, without even delaying rc for them, never
> mind erroring if they fail. This makes it possible to handle the error
> reporting via things
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:16:16PM +1100, Simon Burge wrote:
> 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
>> Though it seems like a good discussion in that some real progress
>> was made, in that the lack of a "noerror" or "allowfail" or whatever
>> flag [...]
> The major issue is that it requires the results of the fsck to be
> available to the mount stage, which isn't so easy to do when both are
>
Date:Thu, 17 Mar 2022 17:34:03 -0400 (EDT)
From:Mouse
Message-ID: <202203172134.raa26...@stone.rodents-montreal.org>
| Though it seems like a good discussion in that some real progress was
| made, in that the lack of a "noerror" or "allowfail" or whatever flag
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
>> 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"
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)
> 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
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
>> 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
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
> 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
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
hi,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 08:53:23AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> But there is no "if-you-can" option in fstab. :0 I want it to be
> mounted if possible, but do not abort if not possible.
Mark it as notauto, and put
@reboot /sbin/mount /build
into /etc/crontab. (and cron=YES in
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:54:59PM +0100, Edgar Fuß wrote:
> > I don't see a real problem with deciding to mount all local filesystems
> > (marked auto of course) at mouncritlocal time.
> What if /usr is on NFS and /usr/local is local?
General case: you mount something that whetever order mounts
Brad Spencer writes:
> Martin Husemann writes:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 08:30:11AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>> I still don't understand and object to this "zfs is special" notion.
>>
>> It is special because it just does not use /etc/fstab (usually).
>> I don't like this part either, but
Martin Husemann writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 08:30:11AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> I still don't understand and object to this "zfs is special" notion.
>
> It is special because it just does not use /etc/fstab (usually).
> I don't like this part either, but we probably don't want to make
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 08:30:11AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I still don't understand and object to this "zfs is special" notion.
It is special because it just does not use /etc/fstab (usually).
I don't like this part either, but we probably don't want to make our
ZFS different from others (or
Brad Spencer wrote:
> Simon Burge writes:
>
> > I'm using ZFS as my root filesystem, with the EFI boot loader reading
> > the kernel from the ZFS root filesystem. This is based on the the
> > FreeBSD libsa ZFS code. https://github.com/snarkophilus/src/tree/zfsboot
> > is this work, and I'm
I had another thought, which might very little work and make everybody
happy:
Add a variable zfs_critical, which if
yes: zfs mount -a happens in mountcritlocal
no: doesn't happen
and maybe
not set: zfs mount -a happens if root is zfs
I think I prefer the
Brad Spencer writes:
>> But seriously, I think tsorting the filesystems is necessary, and then
>> there's putting filesystems into one of
>>
>> required
>> optional
>>
>> and then some sort of label for
>>
>> before-starting-networking
>> after-networking-before-daemons
>>
>> and so on.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:33:14PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Tue, 15 Mar 2022 01:51:55 +1100
> From:Simon Burge
> Message-ID: <20220314145155.ec2bd...@thoreau.thistledown.com.au>
>
>
> | Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
>
>
Robert Elz writes:
> So, add me to the list of people who'd like a "mount if possible"
> switch, with nothing more than a boot warning if some of them cannot
> be found at all, or have unfixable fsck issues.
Agreed - that would be great.
> I'd actually prefer even more - for most of those, if
Greg Troxel writes:
> Brad Spencer writes:
>
>> The point is that by need /usr/sources has to be realized in the system
>> after / and /usr are available and right now those can't be a ZFS pool
>> themselves (well, /usr COULD be, but I can't really see how / could).
>> This, at least in my
Brad Spencer writes:
> The point is that by need /usr/sources has to be realized in the system
> after / and /usr are available and right now those can't be a ZFS pool
> themselves (well, /usr COULD be, but I can't really see how / could).
> This, at least in my opinion, is not a complicated
Date:Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:16:24 -0400
From:Brad Spencer
Message-ID:
| I can't really think of any time when a local filesystem was optional.
That happens all the time, particularly if you consider that filesystems
are first class objects that deserve to be used,
Simon Burge writes:
> [ Moving this from source-changes-d to tech-userlevel and combining
> a couple of messages with one rambling reply. ]
>
[snip]
> I'm using ZFS as my root filesystem, with the EFI boot loader reading
> the kernel from the ZFS root filesystem. This is based on the the
>
> Again we come to what "critical" means. If you have your /build in
> your /etc/fstab, you boot will still fail if you can't mount that
> filesystem (right)?
In my experience, yes, and that is a problem. There really should be a
way to mark an fstab entry "process this if you can, but if you
>> Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
I thought so.
> Not for Paul's reason ("critical" here has nothing to do with
> importance or requirement for operation - just mount ordering)
I thought "critical" in the critical_filesystems_{local,remote} sense
meant
Paul Goyette wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022, Simon Burge wrote:
>
> > Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
>
> Well, I have a dedicated filesystem for builds, separate from my
> OS. The /build happens to be my nvme SSD.
>
> Building (or being able to build) is not
> I don't see a real problem with deciding to mount all local filesystems
> (marked auto of course) at mouncritlocal time.
What if /usr is on NFS and /usr/local is local?
On Mon, 14 Mar 2022, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 08:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Goyette
On Tue, 15 Mar 2022, Simon Burge wrote:
Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
Well, I have a dedicated filesystem for builds, separate from my
OS. The
> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 08:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Paul Goyette
>
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022, Simon Burge wrote:
>
> > Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
>
> Well, I have a dedicated filesystem for builds, separate from my
> OS. The /build happens to be my nvme
Paul Goyette writes:
>> Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
>
> Well, I have a dedicated filesystem for builds, separate from my
> OS. The /build happens to be my nvme SSD.
>
> Building (or being able to build) is not critical to having the
> machine running (and
Simon Burge writes:
> I'm using ZFS as my root filesystem, with the EFI boot loader reading
> the kernel from the ZFS root filesystem. This is based on the the
> FreeBSD libsa ZFS code. https://github.com/snarkophilus/src/tree/zfsboot
> is this work, and I'm planning on merging into main
Date:Tue, 15 Mar 2022 01:51:55 +1100
From:Simon Burge
Message-ID: <20220314145155.ec2bd...@thoreau.thistledown.com.au>
| Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
Not for Paul's reason ("critical" here has nothing to do with importance
or
On Tue, 15 Mar 2022, Simon Burge wrote:
Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
Well, I have a dedicated filesystem for builds, separate from my
OS. The /build happens to be my nvme SSD.
Building (or being able to build) is not critical to having the
machine
[ Moving this from source-changes-d to tech-userlevel and combining
a couple of messages with one rambling reply. ]
Greg Troxel wrote:
> Simon Burge writes:
>
> > I'm running with a complete ZFS-only setup with no legacy mounts. This
> > is my basic ZFS layout (leaving out a few mounts that
44 matches
Mail list logo
