On 10/7/07, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> wrote: > [Nils] > > - Every mountpoint should be a service. If it depends upon other > > mountpoints, SMF dependencies should be used > > exist. For example, if I import a metaset, I want to manage all > the filesystems associated with that metaset as a single unit.
For the sake of discussion on smf-discuss, I would propose that alignment with multiple packaging databases be a possible solution. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/install-discuss/2007-October/005464.html Presumably a service is delivered as a "driver action", not as a strategically placed XML file. It may still be an XML file behind the scenes - but where that is located does not determine if it does something. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/pkg-discuss/2007-October/000099.html > > [Liane] > > - I'd recommend introducing a command to manipulate and query the > > filesystem configuration. I expect some of the concerns about > > moving away from vfstab would be alleviated by a solid (and easily > > scriptable) command to query and manipulate that data. Let's call this fscfg. [snip] > Something that occurs to me: > > One feature that I use fairly often, and is very easy with > vfstab and trivial with zfs, is to rename mount points. > With vfstab, you just edit the file, and do an umount > and mount (maybe with share commands as well); > with zfs it's just 'zfs rename'. If a filesystem is a > service, this could get very complicated. Quite likely a job for fscfg. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/
