Re: [gentoo-user] Re: fsck check of /usr on a separate partition fails during boot

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Dale  wrote:
>> Yea, keep in mind, I didn't want a init thingy at all.
> Could have fooled us...
>

That's either a touch of sarcasm or you missed my messages.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: fsck check of /usr on a separate partition fails during boot

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Dale  wrote:
>
> Yea, keep in mind, I didn't want a init thingy at all.

Could have fooled us...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: fsck check of /usr on a separate partition fails during boot

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:59:56 -0600, Dale wrote:
>
>> Yea, it used to be recommended and in a way it can still be a good
>> idea.  I use LVM for example and I can increase /usr, /var, /home or
>> whatever without having to redo my drive setup.  The only thing I can't
>> change is / which is a regular file system.  Just have to cross that
>> bridge when I get there.
> You can put / on LVM too, but then you'll need an init-thingy and I don't
> think any of us want to go there ;-)
>
>


Yea, keep in mind, I didn't want a init thingy at all.  Thing is, I had
already set up my partitions when that requirement came along. 

In a way, I'd either like to have everything on LVM or BTRFS or nothing
but /home on one of those.  In other words, if I have to have a init
thingy, everything is where I can shrink/expand as needed or if no init
thingy then all those are on a regular file system.  Likely going with
the later next time around. 

Maybe by then BTRFS will be 100% ready to go then.  ;-) 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: fsck check of /usr on a separate partition fails during boot

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:59:56 -0600, Dale wrote:

> Yea, it used to be recommended and in a way it can still be a good
> idea.  I use LVM for example and I can increase /usr, /var, /home or
> whatever without having to redo my drive setup.  The only thing I can't
> change is / which is a regular file system.  Just have to cross that
> bridge when I get there.

You can put / on LVM too, but then you'll need an init-thingy and I don't
think any of us want to go there ;-)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Unsupported service (adj): Broken (see Demon)


pgpFzxN_vNEKI.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: fsck check of /usr on a separate partition fails during boot

[Dale]

Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-01-13 15:49, Dale wrote:
>
>> I think without a init thingy, it mounts / ro at first, runs the checks
>> and then remounts rw.
> Right.
>
>> I think it does the same with /usr.
> No, other filesystems are not mounted at all until they're checked, in
> this situation (which is the traditional one, fsck is older than any
> init thingy concept and a separate /usr was once highly recommended).
>
> :-P :-P
>

You may be right.  I recall at least / being done during the init thingy
part.  I thought /usr was to, since it is mounted along with / within
the init part before the regular OS boots.  That's my understanding of
the purpose of the init thingy is to mount / and /usr and then pivot
over to the regular boot process.  Maybe it mounts /usr ro or something. 

Yea, it used to be recommended and in a way it can still be a good
idea.  I use LVM for example and I can increase /usr, /var, /home or
whatever without having to redo my drive setup.  The only thing I can't
change is / which is a regular file system.  Just have to cross that
bridge when I get there.  Oh, I had a log file file up /var once. 
System was still running and I was able to figure out the problem before
it got worse.  I can't recall what the problem was now but messages was
huge, I mean HUGE. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[gentoo-user] Re: fsck check of /usr on a separate partition fails during boot

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2018-01-13 15:49, Dale wrote:

> I think without a init thingy, it mounts / ro at first, runs the checks
> and then remounts rw.

Right.

> I think it does the same with /usr.

No, other filesystems are not mounted at all until they're checked, in
this situation (which is the traditional one, fsck is older than any
init thingy concept and a separate /usr was once highly recommended).

:-P :-P

-- 
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet, fetch the TXT record for the domain.