Followup question about ZFS pool naming conventions.

[Grant Taylor]

What are your thoughts / reactions to naming the root pool something
other than "rpool"?

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).

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.

What are your thoughts / reactions to this?



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[YTC#1]

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?
>
>
>



--

Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/