On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk_at_phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > I would like to point out that all other operating system which has > had this precise problem, have solved it by adding a bootfs partition > to hold the kernel+modules required to truly understand the disk-layout ? I have seen some form of this solution suggested three times (once by me) and now by someone who I think I can safely states is pretty familiar with geom. So far I have seen no direct response and only a passing comment by jhb that it might be difficult. Sometimes standards need to be broken. Sometimes they such so badly that te entire industry ignores them. But, unless there i a good reason to ignore them, one should fully justify doing so, all the more so when there are obvious ways that non-compliance can lead to disaster. (Think of geli disk there some other software steps on the last block.) Moreover, I think I can see a legitimate case, though I have not tried it. Say I have a FreeBSD system with a large, unused space on the disk and it uses gmirror. I decide that I need to have the ability to occasionally boot Linux on this system (or, even Windows 8). For some reason, and I can think of several, I can't use a virtual system. I create a new partition for the second OS and install it. It knows nothing about the gmirror, so it just uses the disk it is installed on and never touches the metadata. Is this possible? Looks reasonable to me. I really, really feel uncomfortable about all of this. And when people start claiming that, by a very strained interpretation of what appears on the surface to be a clear specification, they are not violating the standard. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6558_at_gmail.comReceived on Thu Jun 28 2012 - 02:28:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:28 UTC