Rainer Orth wrote: > Richard Elling writes: > > >>> I've found out what the problem was: I didn't specify the -F zfs option to >>> installboot, so only half of the ZFS bootblock was written. This is a >>> combination of two documentation bugs and a terrible interface: >>> >>> >> Mainly because there is no -F option? >> > > Huh? From /usr/sbin/installboot: >
Which build you see this? It isn't in the online source browser or b93... there might be another issue lurking here... > COUNT=15 > > while getopts F: a; do > case $a in > F) case $OPTARG in > ufs) COUNT=15;; > hsfs) COUNT=15;; > zfs) COUNT=31;; > *) away 1 "$OPTARG: Unknown fstype";; > esac;; > > Without -F zfs, only part of the zfs bootblock would be copied. > > >> I think that it should be very unusual that installboot would be run >> interactively. That is really no excuse for making it only slightly >> > > Indeed: it should mostly be run behind the scenes e.g. by live upgrade, but > obviously there are scenarios where it is necessary (like this one). > > >> smarter than dd, but it might be hard to justify changes unless some >> kind person were to submit a bug with an improved implementation >> (would make a good short project for someone :-) >> > > The problem here might be that an improved implementation would probably > mean an incompatible change (like doing away with the explicit bootblk > argument). > > Yes, though there are good reasons to use other bootblks. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
