Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Vitor Hugo Nunes dos Santos <vitorhugo@××××××.io>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] rescue cd for zfs 2.1 or thereabouts
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 20:14:06
Message-Id: 02ac546d101ab2e6434c919bc1e62ebd@teknik.io
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] rescue cd for zfs 2.1 or thereabouts by Vitor Hugo Nunes dos Santos
1 To expand on this even further:
2
3 GRUB usage with ZFS, in my experience, requires the following patch:
4
5 https://vhns.com.br/pix/grub-zfs-patch.html
6
7 I took it from GRUB's mailling list. I don't really recall who wrote it.
8
9
10
11 August 23, 2021 4:51 PM, "Vitor Hugo Nunes dos Santos" <vitorhugo@××××××.io> wrote:
12
13 > You set yourself up for failure by sharing the same pool for /boot and root.
14 > Here's the flags you're meant to use for your boot pool:
15 >
16 > https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Getting%20Started/Debian/Debian%20Buster%20Root%20on%20ZFS.ht
17 > l#step-2-disk-formatting
18 >
19 > Under "Create boot pool".
20 > GRUB purposefully has lacking documentation, as they are not friendly towards
21 > ZFS as a whole, and also because most people doing ZFS nowadays do an EFISTUB
22 > setup with no GRUB, exactly to avoid these issues.
23 >
24 > August 23, 2021 3:30 PM, "Rich Freeman" <rich0@g.o> wrote:
25 >
26 >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 2:13 PM Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote:
27 >>
28 >>> All I could find was this:
29 >>>
30 >>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/grub.git/tree/grub-core/fs/zfs/zfs.c#n276
31 >>>
32 >>> For a program with so much documentation, GRUB seems sorely lacking in
33 >>> this respect. It makes me glad I decided to keep /boot off my zpools.
34 >>
35 >> Even this seems lacking. For example, encryption is not read-only
36 >> compatible (which seems obvious), and it isn't listed as compatible in
37 >> the source code you linked. However, grub-mount supposedly uses the
38 >> grub drivers and it has a command line option to provide an encryption
39 >> key. Maybe it is only compatible with the grub-mount command and not
40 >> at boot time, but if so that seems like something worth pointing out
41 >> since one of the purposes of grub-mount is to test filesystem
42 >> compatibility.
43 >>
44 >> --
45 >> Rich