Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:36:35 +0200 From: Volodymyr Kostyrko <c.kworr@gmail.com> To: Shane Ambler <FreeBSD@ShaneWare.Biz> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, james@mansionfamily.plus.com Subject: Re: ZFS - whole disk or partition or BSD slice? Message-ID: <510646A3.3010207@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5105D611.4000506@ShaneWare.Biz> References: <5105BEE4.4030402@mansionfamily.plus.com> <5105D611.4000506@ShaneWare.Biz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
28.01.2013 03:36, Shane Ambler: > On 28/01/2013 10:27, james wrote: >> I have a 9.1 system with some SATA disks in RAIDZ, upgraded from 9.0. >> >> The disks are all the same type, and I formatted them for FreeBSD and >> put ZFS in a slice covering most of them. >> >> I have seen suggestions for OpenIndiana etc that it is better to let ZFS >> have the whole raw disk and that this can control the way it manages the >> disk writeback mode. >> >> Does this apply to FreeBSD and ZFS too? >> >> Presumably the disks are currently FreeBSD-specific. If I used raw >> disks instead of slices, could I read them from a Solaris system too? > > I recall reading that using partitions for zfs on FreeBSD was as good as > full disks. For a boot zpool we need to at least have a partition for > the boot-code and one for zfs preventing the use of a full disk. No, ZFS support booting from dedicated disks. There's a zfsboot file that should be written upon disk first sector and ZFS reservation space to make it bootable. The bad sides are: 1. Difficulties with boot code upgrading. 2. No swap. -- Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?510646A3.3010207>