Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-10 Thread Eray Aslan
On 2011-08-11 12:56 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > The problem of filling up > / is PEBKAC primarily, and can happen equally for / (think /root), /usr > on /, /var on /. This does not match with my experience. Over the years, I have seen /var filling up several times on servers, but not /. Please

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-10 Thread Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10-08-2011 21:56, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:57:30PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: >> Sorry, I should have been more clear here. Mounting /var doesn't >> fill up the root partition, but if you don't want to use the >> initram

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-10 Thread Dale
Robin H. Johnson wrote: The final solution in this thread: TL;DR version: If your /usr is NOT on /, you MUST use an initramfs. More detailed: 1. If you want /usr or /var on separate partitions (not LVM or anything elsewhere userspace action is required to make the block devices usable),

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-10 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:57:30PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > Sorry, I should have been more clear here. Mounting /var doesn't fill up > the root partition, but if you don't want to use the initramfs, this > means that /var must also exist on the root partition, which can create > more of a conc

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-10 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 04:42:04PM -0500, Dale wrote: > For the record, I think /usr should work on a separate partition as > well. You're entirely missing the point of this thread. > One reason, I would like to use LVM on all but my / file system. > This is something I been fiddling with for

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-10 Thread Dale
Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:47:18PM -0500, Dale wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:49:38AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: I am concerned about /var being included in this because of the potential of filling up the root partition. Err, I don't follow. Ho

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-10 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 08:02:44PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:49:38AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > I am concerned about /var being included in this because of the > > potential of filling up the root partition. > Err, I don't follow. How does mounting /var fill u

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-10 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:47:18PM -0500, Dale wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:49:38AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > >> I am concerned about /var being included in this because of the > >> potential of filling up the root partition. > > Err, I don't follow. How does mounting /var fill up the

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-10 Thread Dale
Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:49:38AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: I am concerned about /var being included in this because of the potential of filling up the root partition. Err, I don't follow. How does mounting /var fill up the root partition? If you tak

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-10 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:49:38AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 12:46:04AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > The minimal initramfs would do the following. > > > > 1. Mount devtmpfs/sysfs/procfs as needed to access devices. > > 2. Mount real_root to /newroot > > 3. Read /n

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-10 Thread William Hubbs
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 12:46:04AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > The minimal initramfs would do the following. > > 1. Mount devtmpfs/sysfs/procfs as needed to access devices. > 2. Mount real_root to /newroot > 3. Read /newroot/etc/initramfs.mount and /newroot/etc/fstab > 4.1. If /newroot/etc/in

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-06 Thread Chris Coleman
On 6 August 2011 20:52, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Then yes, such minimal initramfs should propably be covered in the > > > embedded's documentation, but otherwise trying to avoid dracut is > > > reinventing the wheel... > > > > You may be right, but to my understanding such a minimalistic initrd

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-06 Thread Michał Górny
On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 17:52:54 +0200 Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > > Then yes, such minimal initramfs should propably be covered in the > > embedded's documentation, but otherwise trying to avoid dracut is > > reinventing the wheel... > > You may be right, but to my understanding such a minimalistic in

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-06 Thread Marc Schiffbauer
* Samuli Suominen schrieb am 05.08.11 um 15:43 Uhr: > On 08/05/2011 04:12 PM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > > OTOH the initrd that Robin described would be a very static solution > > with almost no dependencies, so if genkernel had a USE flag like > > "dracut" it would be possible to build it without d

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread Sven Vermeulen
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 07:42:29PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:06:48PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > > That said, I'm a bit hesitant to describing that we "recommend" it > > regardless of the situation. What is wrong with describing when? At least > > inform our users

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > Hi Rich, > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 09:04:50PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:06:48PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: >> >> How does the tool that creates an i

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread William Hubbs
Hi Rich, On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 09:04:50PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:06:48PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > >> How does the tool that creates an initramfs know which files to copy from > >> /usr and /var anyho

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:06:48PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: >> How does the tool that creates an initramfs know which files to copy from >> /usr and /var anyhow? > >  My understanding is that nothing gets copied from /usr and /var, and it

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread William Hubbs
Hi, my knowledge of booting from an initramfs is limited right now, so keep that in mind. However, I will attempt to answer some of your questions. On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:06:48PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > I'm all in favor of documenting what an initramfs does (or at least what it > is su

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 09:57:08AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > In any case, as long as a solution exists for md+lvm+luks+/usr before > we start breaking more stuff than is already broken, then we should be > fine. Having more than one optional solution is fine. While I don't > think that gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread Sven Vermeulen
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 08:25:19AM -0500, Matthew Summers wrote: > This, at least to me, seems like an excellent opportunity to nicely > document what can be done with an initramfs (in basic and advanced > forms, as there are some really fancy things one can do with > initramfs's), and how Gentoo i

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Matthew Summers wrote: > In point of fact all modern Linux kernels have an initramfs built in > now, that when empty is effectively bypassed, so there is no wheel > reinvention. To quote the docs [1] Yes, but that embedded initramfs doesn't actually do much of anyt

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 08/05/2011 04:12 PM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > * Rich Freeman schrieb am 05.08.11 um 14:42 Uhr: >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: >>> * Robin H. Johnson schrieb am 05.08.11 um 02:46 Uhr: >>> [...] That leaves the only reasonable solution as #2. In terms of minimal

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread Matthew Summers
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: >> * Robin H. Johnson schrieb am 05.08.11 um 02:46 Uhr: >> [...] >>> That leaves the only reasonable solution as #2. In terms of minimal >>> impact, I propose that we offer users with a s

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread Marc Schiffbauer
* Rich Freeman schrieb am 05.08.11 um 14:42 Uhr: > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > > * Robin H. Johnson schrieb am 05.08.11 um 02:46 Uhr: > > [...] > >> That leaves the only reasonable solution as #2. In terms of minimal > >> impact, I propose that we offer users with a s

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > * Robin H. Johnson schrieb am 05.08.11 um 02:46 Uhr: > [...] >> That leaves the only reasonable solution as #2. In terms of minimal >> impact, I propose that we offer users with a static system an absolutely >> minimal initramfs, that _just

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-05 Thread Marc Schiffbauer
* Robin H. Johnson schrieb am 05.08.11 um 02:46 Uhr: [...] > That leaves the only reasonable solution as #2. In terms of minimal > impact, I propose that we offer users with a static system an absolutely > minimal initramfs, that _just_ mounts the required directories. No > modules, no LVM, no MD,

[gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux

2011-08-04 Thread Robin H. Johnson
I've mainly said out of this discussion until now, because I've been quite busy. The root problem here is that there are starting to be a lot of cases where rule run by udev require that /usr [1] and potentially /var [2] or more are available when the udev rule runs. To the best of my knowledge,