Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot

[Michael Mol]

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:52:22 -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>>> After reading that, and other similar threads, I still don't
>>> understand the benefits of a separated /usr.
>>
>> Putting it on a logical volume is one advantage, allowing /usr to be
>> resized should the need arise.
>
> Why not allow / to be resized entirely? You probably will take the
> machine off-line anyway.

A few months ago, I had to recover a live Debian machine which had
massive filesystem corruption in /usr; the hard drive it was on had
begun going bad, and it was taking out /usr slowly.

I wound up being able to recover by doing a full reinstall of all
packages on the live system after mounting /usr into a freshly-mkfs'd
new lvm volume. If I'd taken the system offline, it would have been
much more difficult.

(As it was, I was shocked it worked)

>
>>> Mounting it read-only
>>> seems the only sensible one, and then I think is better to go all the
>>> way and mount / read-only.
>>
>> Putting /etc on a read-only filesystem seems a really bad idea.
>
> mount -o remount,rw /
> emerge --sync && emerge -uDNv world
> dispatch-conf
> mount -o remount,ro /
>
> Or, if you only want to modify some configuration file (which in a
> sane environment doesn't happen that often):
>
> mount -o remount,rw /
> adduser fulano ...
> mount -o remount,ro /

So, no hobbyists? Operating a 'sane' environment at home isn't how
I've taught myself Linux. In a production environment, sure; having
everything possible be read-only is nice, from a security standpoint.

>
> Again, I don't see the reason for a separated /usr. But *again*, if
> that's what you want, you will be able to do it. You will just need an
> initramfs.

Yeah, great. Used to be, I could configure needed components to be
built-ins in the kernel.

-- 
:wq