Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-07-05 Thread Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > There is one big problem with an event based startup. Specifically for > raid1/4/5/6 devices. Those you can use just fine with missing devices > but the boot should really wait for all device to be present. Well, this problem arises with non-event-based startup as we

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-07-05 Thread C. Gatzemeier
Am Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:31:47 +0200 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow : > The bigger problem is later during boot when you need to wait for all > devices to appear so /usr, /home, ... can be mounted. One way to solve > this would be to have the fsck and mounting of filesystems wait for > the specified t

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-07-04 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Christoph Anton Mitterer writes: > Hi. > > I do not see how a event based initsystem would us actually help (but > perhaps I just don't understand it well enough). > I mean an event would be something like "mount root-fs" but then it > would be still completely open, on what to actually do fo

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-07-02 Thread Christoph Anton Mitterer
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 01:24 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > You're looking for tmpfs and pivot_root. The latter is a hack that's needed > only because of kernel threads, if you're the only process chroot() and > chdir() should be enough. Of course,.. I rather meant,.. whether there are chances that

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-07-01 Thread Adam Borowski
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:38:04AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > Regarding the shutdown thingy... is there any chance that Debian would > introduce kind of un-initramfs-images, in order to really unmount (not > remount,ro) and then cleanly "close" all open block devices? > Or do we have

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-07-01 Thread Christoph Anton Mitterer
Hi. I do not see how a event based initsystem would us actually help (but perhaps I just don't understand it well enough). I mean an event would be something like "mount root-fs" but then it would be still completely open, on what to actually do for that. I'm also do some thinking/planning on

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-07-01 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Daniel Pittman writes: > Goswin von Brederlow writes: >> Daniel Pittman writes: >>> Petter Reinholdtsen writes: [Goswin von Brederlow] > > [... waiting for enough devices to show up ...] > The only known solution today is to add a long delay during boot to try to increase the ch

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-06-30 Thread Daniel Pittman
Goswin von Brederlow writes: > Daniel Pittman writes: >> Petter Reinholdtsen writes: >>> [Goswin von Brederlow] [... waiting for enough devices to show up ...] >>> The only known solution today is to add a long delay during boot to try to >>> increase the chance of having all devices available

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-06-30 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Daniel Pittman writes: > Petter Reinholdtsen writes: >> [Goswin von Brederlow] >> >>> There is one big problem with an event based startup. Specifically for >>> raid1/4/5/6 devices. Those you can use just fine with missing devices but >>> the boot should really wait for all device to be present.

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-06-30 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Petter Reinholdtsen writes: > [Goswin von Brederlow] >> There is one big problem with an event based startup. Specifically >> for raid1/4/5/6 devices. Those you can use just fine with missing >> devices but the boot should really wait for all device to be >> present. > > This problem is not speci

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-06-30 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
[Goswin von Brederlow] > There is one big problem with an event based startup. Specifically > for raid1/4/5/6 devices. Those you can use just fine with missing > devices but the boot should really wait for all device to be > present. This problem is not specific for event based startup. It also e

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-06-30 Thread Daniel Pittman
Petter Reinholdtsen writes: > [Goswin von Brederlow] > >> There is one big problem with an event based startup. Specifically for >> raid1/4/5/6 devices. Those you can use just fine with missing devices but >> the boot should really wait for all device to be present. > > This problem is not specifi

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-06-30 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Petter Reinholdtsen writes: > [Christoph Anton Mitterer] >> Hi folks. >> >> IIRC, Jonas already put some of these issues up here some time ago. >> I was recently investigating, and thanks to the help of many people >> found out how deep the problems actually are. > > I suspect this problem is one

Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-06-27 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
[Christoph Anton Mitterer] > Hi folks. > > IIRC, Jonas already put some of these issues up here some time ago. > I was recently investigating, and thanks to the help of many people > found out how deep the problems actually are. I suspect this problem is one best solved by using an event based sy

Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues

2010-06-26 Thread Christoph Anton Mitterer
Hi folks. IIRC, Jonas already put some of these issues up here some time ago. I was recently investigating, and thanks to the help of many people found out how deep the problems actually are. Following a discussion at lkml (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1003210), I've decided that it