Doug Hughes <d...@will.to> writes: > The reason that data volumes on rpool is generally not a good idea is > for recoverability. You can take all of the disks of a given pool and > move them to another system, except rpool. rpool defines the system > itself, so data volumes there are tied to that system. Data volumes in > any other pool can move between systems very easily, which is great > when you have certain classes of hardware failures, or you want to > upgrade your system, or something similar. The data is thus > independent of the current disposition of the OS. > > At some point later on, you'll likely regret having done it.
[...] Those comments add to my apprehensions about storing data on rpool. I suspect that last line could easily be woefully true. But one thing isn't clear to me. Should I take your comments to mean something like what follows would be more difficult than usual? Say, I went ahead and put rpool on a 1tb mirrored set and stored 5-600 gb of data with it. Later when I finally got over being a tight a__ and put down the `jack' for a cage 4 big discs and whatever other hardware needed. It would be more difficult to move (send/receive) the data filesystems like rpool/mybig/pileof/data to the new discs than it would be from a non-rpool disc? _______________________________________________ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
