Re: Reworked ZFS support in D-I, testers wanted
Thanks for your response.
I've pulled down the latest image from:
to test today. The buildd at this time showed kfreebsd-amd64 as version (9). Here are my notes:
ZFS partitions were detected as ext4.
I was unable to destroy a pool from the menu. I needed to switch to a shell and "zpool destroy" to get rid of any existing configuration.
Using multi disk pools looks to work perfect. Naming pools worked like magic. I especially like the ability to create pools without partitions!
It seems that the workflow only permits you to create a pool for creating logical volumes rather than using the pool directly. In the wheezy installer I tested last weekend, exactly the opposite is true, in that you create a pool to be used directly, albeit in a partition.
Upon creating a zfs volume on a zpool, I received an error that the creation of partition #1 has failed. Though, checking the console I can see system, system/slash and system/slashs1. Inspection of the system/slash zfs volume show that it has type "volume". I think that the default should be filesystem, or at least give the user the opportunity to choose the type. The error I received may have been due to attempting to create the zfs fileystem when no such formatting needed to be done. I was able to move on with the rest of the installation.
I would also like the ability to make use of the zpool directly as my root filesystem. In my opinion, making "volumes" is a useful bit for certain things like iscsi and such where it is required, but I think flexibility for local storage goes out the window when its done this way and using type "filesystem" (zfs default) is preferred since you don't have to chew off a chunk of storage capacity up front. Is this because of a d-i limitation of some kind? I know I want to have and eat my cake.
Installation completed without further errors. Reboot failed with checksum invalid and bailed out to a grub rescue prompt.
I think this is great work and headed in the right direction. Please let me know how I can help.
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Robert Millan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
2011/7/31 Zach JL <email@example.com>:
> I think that the user should be given a chance to enter a name for the zpool
> during installation in the same way that when installing Linux, the user has
> a chance to enter the name of a Volume Group for LVM root.
I think you'll be interested in:
partman-zfs (8) unstable; urgency=low
* Redesign ZFS pool management (mostly based on partman-lvm). New
- Support for ZFS pools with multiple physical devices.
- Support for multiple filesystems within a ZFS pool.
- Support for legacy filesystems using ZFS volumes (ZVOL).
- Arbitrary names for ZFS pools, filesystems and ZVOLs.
-- Robert Millan <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sun, 31 Jul 2011 21:51:47 +0200
which has just been uploaded to unstable.
> The second bit I would like to add, is that it shouldn't be mandatory to use
> partitions at all when using ZFS from the installer. ZFS is perfectly
> capable of using disks without any partitions on them at all, and from
> my understanding of using ZFS in this way, it will actually improve
> performance because you are giving the filesystem access to write cache on
> the disk. See this link for more about that:
I know about the write cache issue, but I'm not sure how can this fit
into partman's workflow. AFAIK partman always wants a partition
label. This might require changes to other parts of D-I.