Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:29:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@puchar.net> To: Eric McCorkle <eric@metricspace.net> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: EFI GELI support ready for testers Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1606011623410.3503@laptop.wojtek.intra> In-Reply-To: <46B3F9E2-A25B-4F9D-B35F-11AC782495B1@metricspace.net> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> It's undesirable because the whole point of ZFS is to have one ZFS volume for the whole system. This sounds more like a religious dogma than anything else. what if i run single disk (or mirrored 2 disk) system, no ZFS but i want everything encrypted by GELI and want only ona partition? Will you write special bootloader that would be hidden unencrypted on geli volume? Will you write 10000 special bootloaders to cope with 10000 cases of configuration FreeBSD admins want to have in the world? Or maybe - in the future admins would not be allowed to decide and there will be only one allowed storage configuration - ZFS volume occupying all disks, with bootloader designed for that one case? Seems i made about year ago a right decision to stick to FreeBSD-10.(between 0 and 1) and then manually apply only security patches and once backport needed driver from newer one....
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.20.1606011623410.3503>