Re: [gentoo-user] systemd and initramfs

[Neil Bothwick]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:50:57 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> > This sounds like a bug in LVM. If it was down to a version clash, why
> > did a restart find the PVs?
>
> Sorry, ianap, but I do know that this kind of thing has never happened
> to me in my 8+ years of running this old system with a separate /usr
> *without* an initramfs...

Which proves absolutely nothing. For all we know you don't use LVM either.

> So, the bottom line is, obviously (to me at least), there are a lot
> more things that can go wrong when an initramfs is involved, that
> simply don't or can't happen otherwise.

I'd take issue with "a lot" but there are things that can go wrong with
an initramfs (but this wasn't one of them, it was PEBKAC) just as there
are things that can go wrong when you use a separate /usr without an
initramfs.

> >> And this is *precisely* what scares me about this.
> >>
> >> This simply should not be, period. Support for separate /usr without
> >> initramfs simply SHOULD NOT be dropped unless/until things like this
> >> (updating lvm) can *never* cause a system to fail to boot like
> >> this.

No one has demonstrated that it can. An initramfs isn't magic, it
caries out a couple of trivial tasks before switching to the real root
partition.

Yes, an initramfs adds an extra step to the boot process, but so does
having a separate /usr in the first place. I think that if you took the
time to understand what an initramfs is and does instead of making an
emotional reaction to it, you would see that this is no big deal.

> > This is irrelevant to separate /usr. an initramfs is required if / is
> > on a VM, whether or not /usr is on the same LV.
>
> Sorry, I don't see where he said that this system was running on a
> VM... or did you mean where he had / on an *LVM* partition - which,
> again, he did not say he had.

Sorry, I meant LV.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

667 - The FAX number of the beast