| 1 |
On Mar 14, 2012 10:30 PM, "Michael Mol" <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> |
| 4 |
wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 2012-03-13 8:07 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> You want it simple? Tha'ts fine, it is possible. It's just that it |
| 8 |
> >> will not solve the general problem, just a very specific subset of it. |
| 9 |
> >> Just as mdev is doing; Walt just posted an email explaining that if |
| 10 |
> >> you use GNOME, KDE, XFCE, or LVM2, mdev is not for you. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Very interesting thread guys, and thanks for keeping it relatively civil |
| 14 |
> > despite the passion behind the objections being raised... |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I just wanted to point out one thing (and ask a question about it) to |
| 17 |
anyone |
| 18 |
> > who argues that servers don't need this - if LVM2 really does eliminate |
| 19 |
the |
| 20 |
> > possibility of using mdev for fundamental reasons (as opposed to |
| 21 |
arbitrary |
| 22 |
> > decisions), that rules out a *lot* of server installations. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > So, that is my question... what is it about LVM2 that *requires* udev? |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > Or asked another way - |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > Why is LVM2 incapable od using mdev? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Alan has explained that LVM2 actually is able to run under mdev, and he's |
| 31 |
investigating if there's any LVM2 feature that is not available. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So far, there's none, and I'm strongly suspicious that it's a case of |
| 34 |
missing dev symlinks that prevented LVM2 to work; something later on the |
| 35 |
"default" runlevel then created the proper dev entries that allow LVM2 to |
| 36 |
work. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
If that is the case -- which I strongly suspect -- then one can use mdev's |
| 39 |
built-in ability to rename/move a device + create a symlink [1] |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
[1] |
| 42 |
https://svn.mcs.anl.gov/repos/ZeptoOS/trunk/BGP/packages/busybox/src/docs/mdev.txt |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> The presumption is that lvm's dependent binaries would be found |
| 46 |
> somewhere under a mount point other than / (such as /usr), which gives |
| 47 |
> you a chicken-and-egg problem if mounting that mount point requires |
| 48 |
> lvm. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Uh... mounting filesystems is not the purview of {u,m}dev... |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Rgds, |
Archives