From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Nov  7 13:37:01 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23BB629E
 for <freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org>; Fri,  7 Nov 2014 13:37:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C29A3FA
 for <freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org>; Fri,  7 Nov 2014 13:37:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua
 [212.40.38.100])
 by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id PAA27266;
 Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:38:46 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1])
 by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD))
 id 1Xmjie-000CfX-Cg; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:36:52 +0200
Message-ID: <545CCABA.6000707@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:35:54 +0200
From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>, Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es>
Subject: Re: ZFS bug: was creating ZIL ignores vfs.zfs.min_auto_ashift, should
 be ZIL sets improper ashift with AHCI controllers
References: <B731A922-3F83-4D8E-A4EA-22C5CA8A3850@sarenet.es>
 <9C91F97841BC4347910F206618BAA3BB9AF327D1@PAIMAIL.pai.local>
 <545B76EF.6050709@multiplay.co.uk>
 <21D2A3A9-B6C1-458F-B17F-480251E999AE@sarenet.es>
 <545BE3E0.4030203@multiplay.co.uk>
 <757B9039-8DF0-4E6A-A036-82A2143D7F45@sarenet.es>
 <545C9552.30207@multiplay.co.uk> <545CB43E.6040901@FreeBSD.org>
 <545CC99B.1010302@multiplay.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <545CC99B.1010302@multiplay.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 13:37:01 -0000

On 07/11/2014 15:31, Steven Hartland wrote:
> illumos does indeed have the following restrictions for root pools according to
> zfs_ioc_vdev_add
> * Concatenated devices are not supported
> * Intent log device is not supported
> 
> So your right but I'm still curious if there are any reasons why we shouldn't
> sync the zpool.cache file for the root pool as that seems independent to this?
> The only thing I can think of is that it was an optimisation but this would
> still break things like a reguid.

Yeah, I'd like to see an answer as well :)

-- 
Andriy Gapon