Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> writes: [snip]
> > I am opposed to deciding that all zfs filesystems should be treated as > critical (in a world where we have not abolished the notion). > > We could have a discussion about why we even have the concept of > critical filesystems, but if so that should not be about zfs and > should be in a new thread on tech-userlevel. And, I think it really > isn't strongly releated to this discussion. [snip] Ya, I suspect that the notion of precedence needs to be developed somehow and not abuse the notion of critical too much. That is, filesystem mounting by type needs to happen in a particular order. The default would have to choose something, either making not ZFS happen first followed by normal and usual ZFS pools, or the other way around. I suspect that someone loses out as no default can handle every way that ZFS may be used when other filesystem types are present. For example, in the cases I have, a FFS is the root filesystem along with other FFS file systems. Under these are ZFS normal pools, so the order I would prefer in this case is mount FFS first and then import the pools, as the places that the pools would mount under would not exist the other way around. However, I very much understand that the other way around could exist where ZFS normal pools are imported before anything else. I honestly don't remember what Solaris did, but I can't see any ordering default with NetBSD handling every case in the correct manor. Even if it were possible to know the root filesystem type in a simple manor like one can know the root filesystem device and partition, I don't think that it would be possible to guess all of the cases correctly. -- Brad Spencer - b...@anduin.eldar.org - KC8VKS - http://anduin.eldar.org