Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:20:53 -0400 From: Jason Hellenthal <jhell@DataIX.net> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org>, Gustau P?rez <gperez@entel.upc.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rc.d script to load kernel modules Message-ID: <20110612212053.GF15184@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <4DF5272A.4050608@FreeBSD.org> References: <4DF3E98B.40108@FreeBSD.org> <20110612085649.GA11503@DataIX.net> <4DF49181.1000007@entel.upc.edu> <20110612185631.GA15184@DataIX.net> <20110612192440.GB37735@in-addr.com> <20110612194237.GD15184@DataIX.net> <4DF517B2.7000209@FreeBSD.org> <20110612204328.GE15184@DataIX.net> <4DF5272A.4050608@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--JSkcQAAxhB1h8DcT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 01:52:58PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 6/12/2011 1:43 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > > > > Doug, > > > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:46:58PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 6/12/2011 12:42 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > >> > >>> Yes I agree. I was just stating that simply for the previous post > >>> implying where ZFS was slower than UFS. > >> > >> No, it wasn't. You completely fail to understand the problem. Stop > >> writing, and start reading. As in, read the threads on both -arch and > >> the svn list, and this entire thread again, then wait an hour or two > >> before posting anything else. (Yes, I'm serious) > >> > > > > Yes, it, was. This was not to your post. This was to another fellows > > which don't recall his name ATM but would please be as kind as to > > discard the unuseful comments. I was agree'ing with Gary that its not a > > problem with ZFS/UFS or any mix or match of the two. Perhaps a pause in > > both of our replies would be duly needed. >=20 > Gustau's post said in part: >=20 > > For example, in my case, I'm booting from a zfs-only installation. > > Kldloading a ten or twelve modules in loader.conf takes a long time > > compared to a UFS-only installation. Moving them to a rc.d script would > > allow me to save a lot of time during the boot process. >=20 > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2011-June/025132.html >=20 { > zfs vs. ufs is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is=20 > entirely related to the fact that loading modules from the boot loader=20 > is always going to be many many times slower than loading them from the= =20 > disk after the system is booted. Kevin was kind enough to elaborate,=20 > hopefully his explanation is better than mine, and will help you=20 > understand the problem better. } Yes this is what I was agreeing to in a sense which is what Gary stated. >=20 > Meanwhile, to address Gustau's original point, the modules related to=20 > getting zfs up and running would still have to be loaded in loader.conf.= =20 > My solution is only effective for those modules which are not related to= =20 > getting the local disks on line (which fortunately is the vast majority= =20 > of them). >=20 Yeah his message was around what I was thinking was wrong with loader or not neccesarily wrong but what it was limited to that was similiar to one of my previous messages stating contention, limitation, etc... --JSkcQAAxhB1h8DcT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://bit.ly/0x89D8547E iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN9S20AAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+i7YH/iJsXw8xeFF29wwQtaCS2BwT hGEFxdIuV2EfTtR8gO1iYVw5OYhP6ku5Hbj3+GPTmG9bzDkaGVCRQxY1d10KOZnz oC+BBJCHjRLpJL6KSSPnNUg8leNMJO3lCr2kqNQxIftJ6zXQQS8pUubfmuvluNnQ sQaQbLYk367neSPUKYfyK21jrqd50N0NsNSm2msQKnSLP54kx7SCFOtATKKz8d8k ALhTqAWP9C9NL/FLJFBe1gAQ/GvOhbXpXMNZMYOOCxu+zDMDsYS8/UhvVgHmpDsw 3i0VLTO89Fq/Tc8WG4QhAw1lbKGtTC3e2hrq9B6wFmMUYPHoH8ND2bCwdAdh9lw= =T/wc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --JSkcQAAxhB1h8DcT--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110612212053.GF15184>