Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:45:26 -0700
From:      Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
To:        David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: RFC: Suggesting ZFS "best practices" in FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <5DD4A455-A351-4676-979B-4D7199F0FA1C@samsco.org>
In-Reply-To: <50FF7764.2020803@freebsd.org>
References:  <314B600D-E8E6-4300-B60F-33D5FA5A39CF@sarenet.es> <565CB55B-9A75-47F4-A88B-18FA8556E6A2@samsco.org> <50FF7764.2020803@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:38 PM, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 2013/01/22 22:33, Scott Long wrote:
>>=20
>> On Jan 22, 2013, at 4:03 AM, Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es> wrote:
>>=20
>>> (Scott, I hope you don't mind to be CC'd, I'm not sure you read the =
-FS mailing list, and this is a SCSI//FS issue)
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Hi :)
>>>=20
>>> Hope nobody will hate me too much, but ZFS usage under FreeBSD is =
still chaotic. We badly need a well proven "doctrine" in order to avoid =
problems. Especially, we need to avoid the braindead Linux HOWTO-esque =
crap of endless commands for which no rationale is offered at all, and =
which mix personal preferences and even misconceptions as "advice" (I =
saw one of those howtos which suggested disabling checksums "because =
they are useless").
>>>=20
>>> ZFS is a very different beast from other filesystems, and the setup =
can involve some non-obvious decisions. Worse, Windows oriented server =
vendors insist on bundling servers with crappy raid controllers which =
tend to make things worse.
>>>=20
>>> Since I've been using ZFS on FreeBSD (from the first versions) I =
have noticed several serious problems. I try to explain some of them, =
and my suggestions for a solution. We should collect more use cases and =
issues and try to reach a consensus.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> 1- Dynamic disk naming -> We should use static naming (GPT labels, =
for instance)
>>>=20
>>> ZFS was born in a system with static device naming (Solaris). When =
you plug a disk it gets a fixed name. As far as I know, at least from my =
experience with Sun boxes, c1t3d12 is always c1t3d12. FreeBSD's dynamic =
naming can be very problematic.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Look up SCSI device wiring in /sys/conf/NOTES.  That's one solution =
to static naming, just with a slightly different angle than Solaris.  I =
do agree with your general thesis here, and either wiring should be made =
a much more visible and documented feature, or a new mechanism should be =
developed to provide naming stability.  Please let me know what you =
think of the wiring mechanic.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>=20
> I am curious, because we already have devfs, why do not the driver =
create device entry like following ?
>=20
> /dev/scsi/bus0/target0/lun0/ada0
> /dev/scsi/bus0/target0/lun0/ada0s1
> /dev/scsi/bus0/target0/lun0/ada0s2
> ...
>=20
> This will eliminate the needs of hints.
>=20

The problem is that this structure is east for computers to manipulate, =
but hard for humans to manipulate.  One thing that could be done with =
devfs, however, is to create device aliases.  i.e.:

crw-r-----   1 root  operator  0x86 Jan  2 23:00 c0b0t1l0
lrwxr-xr-x   1 root  wheel        6 Jan  2 23:00 da0 -> c0b0t1l0

This gets hairy because aliases then need to be made for partitions, =
unless some sort of transparent translator is created in devfs.  It also =
gets complicated because you still need to arbitrate the controller =
numbering (the 'c0' in the above example), so wiring might still be =
needed.

Scott




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5DD4A455-A351-4676-979B-4D7199F0FA1C>