overall I'm quite pleased with genkernel and have relegated much
tedium to its functions over time. perhaps it's a worthy mule for
more responsibility.
I have mirror volumes which have survived almost 8 years with 2nd and
third generation drives, motherboard, and architecture (32->64 bit).
On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 14:11 -0700, Jim Northrup wrote:
> I'm very happy with new GUID-based volume mounting and more stable raid
> tools, but a CF-based or initrd root available when /lib goes to hell is
> an absolute must for supporting fault tolerance.
If you use genkernel to build your kernel
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 May 2005 06:34 pm, Jim Northrup wrote:
>
>>of course bb is a space-saver, but i find myself turning the room upside
>>down for full-static versions of tar, nc and fileutils
>
>
> bb is static and it supports tar, nc, and many fileutils ;)
> -mike
If only a
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 06:34 pm, Jim Northrup wrote:
> of course bb is a space-saver, but i find myself turning the room upside
> down for full-static versions of tar, nc and fileutils
bb is static and it supports tar, nc, and many fileutils ;)
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 05:11 pm, Jim Northrup wrote:
but a CF-based or initrd root available when /lib goes to hell is
an absolute must for supporting fault tolerance.
do you mean like the disk underneath /lib is blown to crap or a bad glibc is
merged ?
if the
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 05:11 pm, Jim Northrup wrote:
> but a CF-based or initrd root available when /lib goes to hell is
> an absolute must for supporting fault tolerance.
do you mean like the disk underneath /lib is blown to crap or a bad glibc is
merged ?
if the latter, then the new busybox ca
I had smashing success migratingraid volumes to a new motherboard by
building a readonly loopback boot-cd rootfs volume, and using
cp -sr /mnt/rescue /mnt/newroot
before building stage2,3; with minor /etc grumbling, the system
bootstrapped flawlessly while still borrowing a few sensitive stat
