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?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 294 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 246:41:34 |
Calls: | 6,626 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,175 |
Messages: | 5,320,793 |