Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:19:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@puchar.net> To: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@bec.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: EFI GELI support ready for testers Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1606011716550.3723@laptop.wojtek.intra> In-Reply-To: <20160601144738.GA14531@britannica.bec.de> References: <519CC1FC-84DF-4710-8E62-AF26D8AED2CF@metricspace.net> <20160528083656.GT38613@kib.kiev.ua> <d6b96a6c-4e92-35a5-e78b-cc674b6d2f25@freebsd.org> <20160528172618.GB38613@kib.kiev.ua> <6A9DADE0-B214-424A-BB14-0B0848F0D08D@metricspace.net> <20160529091827.GD38613@kib.kiev.ua> <46B3F9E2-A25B-4F9D-B35F-11AC782495B1@metricspace.net> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1606011623410.3503@laptop.wojtek.intra> <20160601144738.GA14531@britannica.bec.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> This sounds more like a religious dogma than anything else. > > If "ZFS volume" means "ZFS pool" here, it is also blatant bullshit. > There are a lot of reasons for having more than one ZFS pool, the > easiest being separating SSDs and HDDs for fast vs cheap storage. assuming one would like to use ZFS - it is of course right. As with any other filesystem. Even more - no matter what filesystem i would use i would never want to put tens of disks as one filesystem. for simple reason of recovery and reliability. And i consider FreeBSD loader already overcomplex. having separate partition for boot stuff is just fine. After kernel is loaded it takes care of all stuff.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.20.1606011716550.3723>