Re: beadm vs bectl

From: Pete Wright <pete_at_nomadlogic.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:41:57 -0700
On 8/27/18 3:22 PM, Allan Jude wrote:
> On 2018-08-27 14:50, Pete Wright wrote:
>> hi there - i have a zfs based system where /boot is on its own pool.
>> beadm seems happy enough with this setup but bectl errors out like so:
>>
>> $ sudo bectl list
>> / and /boot not on same device, quitting
>> $
>>
>> $ beadm list
>> BE                 Active Mountpoint  Space Created
>> default            NR     /           47.6G 2018-03-02 20:30
>> snapshot_02262018  -      -            1.5G 2018-03-03 14:38
>> badresume_05122018 -      -            4.4G 2018-05-12 19:45
>> 11_2_beta          -      -            2.6G 2018-05-13 18:26
>> resume_works       -      -           12.6G 2018-06-01 16:45
>> $
>>
>> reading the manpage for bectl it doesn't mention this being an issue.
>> so i guess i have two questions:
>> 1) is it a bad thing(tm) to have /boot on its own pool?
>> 2) assuming that having /boot on its  own pool, why does bectl not work
>> with this configuration?
>>
>> thanks!
>> -pete
>>
> Your /boot being on a separate pool can never work, since you can't take
> a consistent snapshot of / and have it include your kernel (which is
> under /boot/kernel which is a separate pool)
>
> Do you know why you have 2 separate pools? If it was for GELI support,
> FreeBSD 12.0 will not require two separate pools anymore, and there will
> be migration instructions shortly.
>

thanks Allan!  that is precisely why i have a separate /boot IIRC - i 
use GELI to encrypt zroot.  i'll keep my eyes open for migration 
instructions which i'll be sure to test out and provide feedback on.

thanks!
-pete

-- 
Pete Wright
pete_at_nomadlogic.org
_at_nomadlogicLA
Received on Thu Aug 30 2018 - 03:42:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:18 UTC