* Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> [130509 13:34]: > The assumptions here are that a separate rootfs decreases the chance > of breakage, and that you'll need the rootfs to perform the rescue.
No, the point is that having two file systems reduces the amout of breakage you get. All the important stuff is in / while /usr is mostly static data easily (at least outside /usr/local, and even there more likely than say /etc) recoverable or not that important if lost. Also with the tools in / you can usually repair problems in /usr. There is just the right kernel and just the right versions of all tools. You can do most of the stuff with some rescue-disc, if the versions fits. But too often there are differences. And getting some other tool it misses means you need to either install it in an ramfs and hope you do not need to reboot or you need to have some spare partition on the hw left. And you do not have access to your fstab. While each of those problems is managable alone, they sum up. Each adds to the time you need. And time is often something you do not really want to spend in case you have a problem. And while there is no proof that when having one small and one large partition, the small partition is less likely to fail than everything in one large partition together, both reason and experience demand that this point is quite more than an "assumption". > Regarding rescue, the initramfs has a rescue shell which I've found > to be just as useful as single user mode. Once it has mounted the > rootfs, you can chroot into that and do whatever you would normally > do to rescue /usr. [Assuming a separate /usr.] If it doesn't get as > far as mounting the rootfs, then you'll need some rescue disc in any > case. I find the busybox shell to be just as effective as a rescue > disc in most cases. "rescue /usr" in a seperate / + /usr setting usually means making sure it can be mounted again. (Or to transfer data elsewhere, which is also much easier when your normal network setup is already available). > In the case where we're mounting /usr in the initramfs rather than > having it on the rootfs, there's no practical difference to the > current status quo (and this is intentional). The only change is > that we provide the guarantee that /usr is available before init > starts. Or in other words: to make essential functionality not available if /usr is broken. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130509150537.gb4...@client.brlink.eu