On 20/05/2020 17:22, Grant Taylor wrote:
> What are your thoughts / reactions to naming the root pool something
> other than "rpool"?
I hate it.
I understand why people would want to do it, but it is (IMO) pointless.
> I'm wondering if a convention from Linux (which I've seen elsewhere too)
> might be acceptable, if not somewhat beneficial.
> Specifically, using the hostname as the (root) pool name. The idea
> being to help differentiate which system a (root) pool belongs to,
> particularly in an environment where's it's conceivable that disks may
> get connected to the wrong system (FC / iSCSI / iFCP / FCoE SANs).
If the wrong system is connected and booted, then you will get the wrong
hostname/IP (assuming it booted).
> To continue the example that I've been using:
> bastion1's (root) pool would be named "bastion1/ROOT/..."
> bastion2's (root) pool would be named "bastion2/ROOT/..."
> I think this could also help in the event that a pool needs to be
> re-attached to a different system (during recovery / maintenance) to
> access data by avoiding conflicts with the "rpool" of the system to be
> recovered with "rpool" of the system being used to do the recovery.
There are ZFS import commands to deal with this.
> What are your thoughts / reactions to this?
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/