Thanks for taking the time to reply! This probably won't make it to pkg-discuss since I'm not subscribed to it.
On 11/ 4/09 11:27 AM, Evan Layton wrote: > > That being said since you would be doing this manually and outside > the tools and utilities provided this would not be supportable and > you would be forcing the duplicate name. Here's the (quite plausible) scenario. Your root pool is on a largish disk and you'd like to move it to a smaller one (say an SSD). So you create a new root pool on the smaller disk, and zfs send/recv a snapshot of the current root pool to it, and then delete the snapshots. AFAIK beadm list will show both BEs with the same be-name. If it were necessary to do so, how would one activate the new BE? Boot from CD? > This is correct, if you manually added this BE you would have to > manually rename it. Presumably one workaround is to make sure the new root pool is completely unmounted, rename the current BE, remount the new one, and then activate it. This seems awfully cumbersome, but is this scenario likely to be common enough to rate an RFE? Actually, I can think of a number of scenarios where you'd want to have multiple active BEs at the same time. Will beadm support that? > Attempting to use the --be-name option with or without the -R option > produces the same traceback since the BE name already exists. If this > is a bug it's a bug in pkg(5). Shouldn't it be printing out an error > saying that the BE name already exists instead of this traceback? IMO it should, since this could very well happen legitimately and tracebacks are rather ugly... Cheers -- Frank
