ZFS going forward, on stable/13 vs. main: question
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 30 23:21:32 UTC 2021
Context . . .
I've been experimenting with ZFS and bectl use recently.
It has been many years since I last used ZFS --and that
was only a short experiment that did not have to deal
with upgrades over time.
I now have:
# bectl list
BE Active Mountpoint Space Created
13S-CA72-nodbg N / 4.02G 2021-04-27 18:55
13_0R-CA72-nodbg R - 8.49G 2021-04-28 10:48
main-CA72-nodbg - - 3.24G 2021-04-30 13:25
(so a stable/13 vintage , releng/13.0 as of release/13.0.0 ,
and a main vintage for what things are based on). That is
via:
zroot/ROOT/13S-CA72-nodbg 1.60G 131G 4.10G /
zroot/ROOT/13_0R-CA72-nodbg 8.49G 131G 4.59G /
zroot/ROOT/main-CA72-nodbg 1.77G 131G 4.63G /
For reference: the context is simple in various
other respects:
# gpart show
=> 40 468862048 da0 GPT (224G)
40 532480 1 efi (260M)
532520 2008 - free - (1.0M)
534528 25165824 2 freebsd-swap (12G)
25700352 25165824 4 freebsd-swap (12G)
50866176 417994752 3 freebsd-zfs (199G)
468860928 1160 - free - (580K)
The USB SSD is used to boot and use any of (all
aarch64):
An OverDrive 1000
A MACCHIATObin Double Shot
Various RPi4B's with 8 GiBytes RAM
Potentially various RPI4B's with 4 GiBytes RAM.
Question . . .
Are there any potential future upgrade issues with main
[so: 14] vs. stable/13 and releng/13.0 , say by main
updates involving ZFS updates in a way stable/13 or the
recent releng/13.* might not handle?
The implication would be that such a mix of boot
environments on the same zpool or media might not
be a good idea over time: main might be better
separated so the ZFS versioning is independent
between 13 and 14.
===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com
( dsl-only.net went
away in early 2018-Mar)
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list