Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote: >> Beleive me, I understand the wins from using ZFS. Using it for root >> probably has benefits I haven't even imagined yet. I am looking forward >> to playing with that to be sure. But I think it might be short sighted >> to expect all of Sun's customers to adoopt 'ZFS on root' in order to be >> able touse Solaris 11. > > I would think so too. Also, this would seem to preclude any form of > upgrade from Solaris 10 or earlier (no ZFS root) > > The step from not allowing something to requiring something in one release > it just too big.
What has the size of the step got to do with anything? As long as the default policy is ufs root, you are going to have to either support upgrade or tell people "tough luck". One can imagine LiveUpgrade supporting zfs root; this would make migration to S10U<mumble> w/ zfs root straightforward enough. W/o additional disks, though, some free disks space will be needed somewhere to do the migration in place. > >> In the ZFS world updating a live BE won't require a seperate BE to >> update, but I hope the notion of seperate BE's doesn't diappear, for the >> dual booting funtionalty. without truely seperate areas of the disk, I >> can't keep S10 and SNV easily (well I can go back to switching in OBP on >> SPARC but...) S10 won't understand ZFS. > > So your question is, can I have multiple bootable ZFS pools? > The really big advantage of requiring ZFS root for Solaris Nevada is that patching, upgrade, LiveUpgrade, etc, become much easier and much more robust. If we don't require ZFS root, all the old mechanisms will need to be maintained and kept working for use w/ ufs - significantly increasing the maintenance/testing burden. - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts
