1 |
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 09/15/2011 07:33 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote: |
4 |
> > The use for an initrd/initramfs/... will create an additional layer of |
5 |
> > complexity a lot of us users are not really waiting for, especially as we |
6 |
> are |
7 |
> > not seeing any issues with our current systems. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Like it or not, it's the simplest possible solution if you want separate |
10 |
> /usr. The plan is to provide a minimal initramfs that won't contain any |
11 |
> modules, so it won't have to be rebuilt for each kernel. See the "/usr |
12 |
> vs. initramfs redux" thread: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> |
15 |
It should be noted that the alternative is to use a more full-featured |
16 |
initramfs like dracut, which will also be updated to support mounting /usr |
17 |
(it already parses /etc/fstab to remount root anyway). |
18 |
|
19 |
The minimal initramfs will not contain mdadm or lvm tools, so it is |
20 |
basically suitable for booting systems that don't currently require an |
21 |
initramfs. Of course, something like dracut is more likely to require you |
22 |
to rebuild the initramfs every time you update your kernel, and won't simply |
23 |
be a static image like the simplified one. |
24 |
|
25 |
The simplified initramfs could be compiled into the kernel as Zac suggests |
26 |
(this is probably the most foolproof method), or it could be loaded from |
27 |
/boot using the appropriate grub settings. |
28 |
|
29 |
Note that dracut does drop you to a shell if it fails (this is |
30 |
configurable), but by default this shell is dash, not bash. No doubt it |
31 |
would work fine either way, but bash is likely to be a little slower. I |
32 |
don't think RAM use is likely to be a problem - it should be completely |
33 |
de-allocated before init runs. |