[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ezjail] ZFS? [WAS] Re: Problem with "archive" command in 3.0b



Graham Todd wrote:
> Would this also work for the binary freebsd-update(5) method for the basejail?

I haven't tested all this with freebsd-update since I only have ZFS
systems with CURRENT and obviously no freebsd-update is available for them!

It could work, since creating the basejail/newjail filesystem or
directories is done before doing make installworld or freebsd-update.

 But I need to test this of course, if noone else would like to do that.

> Side note: I found UFS based image jails ran a bit more sanely off of a
> UFS file system .. with the image sitting on top of ZFS I had more
> frequent need for fsck. This was not extensively tested and may have been
> hardware related.

This has nothing to do with hardware, this is what happens when you put
UFS image-files on top of ZFS.

If in moment UFS syncs the buffers into the diskimage the system
crashes, ZFS didn't have time to do its own syncing. This is not a
problem for ZFS, as it is designed to withstand such things, but the
synced data of UFS will not be on disk. So ZFS is reverting the UFS
state in the disk-image back to the un-synced state which will require
UFS to fsck,

> Yeah :) Anyone doing all this on CURRENT with the latest greatest zfs :)

This is all tested on CURRENT, I have no none-current ZFS systems left :-)

*shameless plug* If you're interested in ZFS for root-filesystem, check
out my stuff at
http://anonsvn.h3q.com/projects/freebsd-patches/wiki/manageBE

greetings,
philipp