Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 08:38:13 -0500 From: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> To: Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com>, FreeBSD current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 10.0-BETA1 ZFS install -- /var/empty read-only Message-ID: <5267D145.9070502@vangyzen.net> In-Reply-To: <CA%2B7WWSc=Qr9oj=nJM7RxqFhzGCKaiDm8KJPPNbTEH9Q1rhvc=w@mail.gmail.com> References: <5267CE4B.8050602@vangyzen.net> <CA%2B7WWSc51d2G7KfoP=sg1uL4cyKDGxxLikn5b2WNh8doAQDufQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2B7WWSc=Qr9oj=nJM7RxqFhzGCKaiDm8KJPPNbTEH9Q1rhvc=w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/23/2013 08:30, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> wrote: >>> I just installed 10.0-BETA1 using the [very cool] new automatic ZFS >>> option. I noticed that /var/empty is not mounted read-only. I suspect >>> it could be. I made it so, and sshd still seemed to work. >>> >>> Eric >> I don't think there's a standard for how to break down the ZFS pool to >> individual datasets. If the install made only a single dataset for >> /var you would then effectively get a read-write /var/empty. The > *The same applies* > >> applies if you install on UFS and don't assign a separate filesystem >> for /var/empty like the default install does in fact. There might not be a standard, but the installer does have a default set, which includes a separate filesystem for /var/empty. I imagine this was done specifically to make it read-only. Since that was not done, it seems like an oversight. Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5267D145.9070502>