[Mageia-dev] Please test: initscripts+systemd in updates_testing

Mon Oct 31 20:01:15 CET 2011

Colin Guthrie skrev 31.10.2011 19:47:
+> 'Twas brillig, and Thomas Backlund at 31/10/11 17:06 did gyre and gimble:
+>> Michael Scherer skrev 31.10.2011 18:07:
+>>> Le dimanche 30 octobre 2011 à 14:19 +0200, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
+>>>>
+>>>> I'm saying moving the stuff that is _really_ needed, not based on "udev
+>>>> might run"...
+>>>>
+>>>> well, thinking some more on it I guess the real design flaw (not systemd
+>>>> specific) is using all of udev in init. Init should not care about more
+>>>> than getting disc access (and probably network for pxe  boots)
+>>>
+>>> That's the point that Lennart make, ie :
+>>> "we used to have / to mount all partition and /usr to be mounted, now,
+>>> we have initramfs to mount /, and then / to mount /usr, so it would be
+>>> simpler to merge / and /usr"
+>>>
+>>
+>> -ENOTCONVINCED
+>
+> :)
+>
+>
+>> Just have initramfs mount / and /usr, no need to merge.
+>
+> Yes, this is exactly what is intended, but it depends on the use case:
+>
+
+Then I have misread something somewhere along the way... :/
+
+> For simple installs, such as on my laptop or typical "desktop" linux,
+> then having separate / and /usr is something I've specifically avoided
+> for just about ever (I sometimes have separate /boot for "complicated
+> rootfs" reasons and I almost always have a separate /home, but other
+> than that, I like to keep my desktops/laptops simple). In other words
+> there just are not sufficient benefits in doing this.
+
+Yes,
+I agree for the desktop/laptop/pad/ use there is no need for splitting
+besides /home and maybe separate /boot if you want to use encryption.
+
+>
+> But on the server, especially on a farm of servers with a potentially
+> shared /usr across several machines, then yes, keeping it as something
+> that can be mounted by the initramfs is perfectly feasible. This is a
+> specific use case that Lennart + Co are trying to design for.
+>
+
+Ok, this is exactly the part that have raised my concerns that it was 
+about to be "forgotten" in favour of "simplicity".
+
+Server installs usually want to be more "free" to finetune.
+
+Another use case is to be able to split up the system on more harddisks 
+to even the load on the disks.
+
+And yet another is simply to get more space depending on hw.
+(yes I know lvm exists but it's also an extra layer / point of failure
+  that is not always worth it)
+
+But if this part is the "some specific usecases" then I guess I need to
+start re-reading some stuff :)
+
+--
+Thomas
+
+