[OpenIndiana-discuss] data on rpool - Bad idea?

[Harry Putnam]

Doug Hughes <doug at will.to> writes:

> The reason that data volumes on rpool is generally not a good idea is
> for recoverability. You can take all of the disks of a given pool and
> move them to another system, except rpool. rpool defines the system
> itself, so data volumes there are tied to that system. Data volumes in
> any other pool can move between systems very easily, which is great
> when you have certain classes of hardware failures, or you want to
> upgrade your system, or something similar. The data is thus
> independent of the current disposition of the OS.
>
> At some point later on, you'll likely regret having done it.

[...]

Those comments add to my apprehensions about storing data on rpool.  I
suspect that last line could easily be woefully true.

But one thing isn't clear to me.  Should I take your comments to mean
something like what follows would be more difficult than usual?

Say, I went ahead and put rpool on a 1tb mirrored set and stored 5-600
gb of data with it.

Later when I finally got over being a tight a__ and put down the
`jack' for a cage 4 big discs and whatever other hardware needed.

It would be more difficult to move (send/receive) the data filesystems
like rpool/mybig/pileof/data to the new discs than it would be from a
non-rpool disc?