Gentoo Archives: gentoo-server

From: Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info>
To: gentoo-server@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev?
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:09:14
Message-Id: CAA2qdGXH-Hj_xqRdqrTENV9erbkKkVXMDBz4ZeRH+C_vjG8sHw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev? by "Halassy Zoltán"
1 On Mar 21, 2012 4:23 PM, "Halassy Zoltán" <zhalassy@×××××××.hu> wrote:
2 >>
3 >> IMO, initramfs adds yet another black box during server boot.
4 >
5 >
6 > The other way around, for me at least. I build my own initramfs, yet I
7 don't know anything about mdev, just the fact it's part of busybox. So for
8 me, mdev is a black box, while my initramfs definitely isn't.
9 >
10 >
11
12 I see. Well, different views for different people, I guess.
13
14 It's easier for me to bypass mdev (if it's b0rken) than to bypass initramfs.
15
16 >> And yet
17 >> another daemon in memory, something I certainly don't need on my static
18 >> virtualized servers.
19 >
20 >
21 > I agree with that. But why do you need mdev for a static system? A few
22 mknods would suffice.
23 >
24
25 It allows triggered action when I (for example) attach a (virtual) hard
26 disk to my VM.
27
28 Rgds,

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev? Daniel Reidy <dubkat@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev? BRM <bm_witness@×××××.com>