Re: A random initramfs script

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Andre Noll murmured woefully: > On 00:41, Nix wrote: > >> > So I downloaded iproute2-2.4.7-now-ss020116-try.tar.gz, but there >> > seems to be a problem with errno.h: >> >> Holy meatballs that's ancient. > > It is the most recent version on the ftp server mentioned in the HO

Re: A random initramfs script

On 00:41, Nix wrote: > > So I downloaded iproute2-2.4.7-now-ss020116-try.tar.gz, but there > > seems to be a problem with errno.h: > > Holy meatballs that's ancient. It is the most recent version on the ftp server mentioned in the HOWTO. > Try >

Re: A random initramfs script

On 15:23, Neil Brown wrote: > You shouldn't need portmap to mount an NFS filesystem unless you > enable locking, That's news to me, thanks for pointing it out. But I do need portmap for mounting a NFS filesystem read-only (/usr, which contains portmap). Is that correct? > > He likes to compare t

Re: A random initramfs script

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Andre Noll stated: > On 07:50, Nix wrote: >> If / was a ramfs (as rootfs is), you'd run out of memory... > > Yes, it's an additional piece of rope, and I already used it to shoot > myself in the foot by doing a backup with "rsync -a /home /mnt" without > mounting /mnt. First t

Re: A random initramfs script

On 07:50, Nix wrote: > I suppose that if *every* filesystem hanging off / is its own > fs, using rootfs as your / is not inefficient because there's > still nothing in it. > > But it still makes me worry: what if some mad script makes a > huge file in /? It's happened to me a couple of times, and

Re: A random initramfs script

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Neil Brown wrote: > On Wednesday March 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> On 08:29, Nix wrote: >> > Yeah, that would work. Neil's very *emphatic* about hardwiring the UUIDs of >> > your arrays, though I'll admit that given the existence of --examine >> > --scan, >> > I don't real

Re: A random initramfs script

On 20:56, Nix wrote: > > What I meant is that it never gets overmounted by a real rootfs. > > The rootfs never overmounts anything. Do you mean `it never gets > overmounted by a real root filesystem'? Yes, that's what I tried to say. Sorry about the confusion. Basically I have three similar setu

Re: A random initramfs script

On Wednesday March 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 08:29, Nix wrote: > > I try to avoid running daemons out of initramfs, because all those daemons > > share *no* inodes with anything else you'll ever run: more permanent memory > > load for as long as those daemons are running, although at least

Re: A random initramfs script

On 08:29, Nix wrote: > > I'm using a similar setup since December or so with no problems so > > far. However, all my systems have initramfs as their rootfs. > > (well, technically, *every* 2.6 system has an initramfs unpacked into > its rootfs: it's just that for most people it's empty.) What I

Re: A random initramfs script

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Andre Noll gibbered uncontrollably: > On 21:37, Nix wrote: > >> In the interests of pushing people away from in-kernel autodetection, >> I thought I'd provide the initramfs script I just knocked up to boot >> my RAID+LVM system. It's had a whole four days of testing so it mus

Re: A random initramfs script

On 21:37, Nix wrote: > In the interests of pushing people away from in-kernel autodetection, > I thought I'd provide the initramfs script I just knocked up to boot > my RAID+LVM system. It's had a whole four days of testing so it must > work. :) I'm using a similar setup since December or so wit

A random initramfs script

In the interests of pushing people away from in-kernel autodetection, I thought I'd provide the initramfs script I just knocked up to boot my RAID+LVM system. It's had a whole four days of testing so it must work. :) It's being used to boot a system that boots from RAID-1 and has almost everything