Mark Post wrote:
That's is all that's necessary. And, again, if you make sure that when DASD volumes are added, that the proper configuration files are there, it should work just fine. However, consider the case where / is on an LV, and you just added another volume to the VG. That's big time trouble. So, to try to be on the safe side, the SUSE folks have apparently decided to err on the side of caution. Any active DASD volumes at the time mkinitrd is run get added to the initrd. If you add DASD via YaST, that all gets done for you, and you don't have to worry about it. If you do it manually, you better know what you're doing, either in the setup, or the recovery effort. :)
Wait ! I'm not denying that actually going through a mkinitrd/zipl cycle is a bad thing (I might have said something in the liking.. but the pros outweigh the cons here)! As you said, adding a PV in the VG in which the LV hosting the root fs is is a very valid candidate to go through the cycle (I know nothing about EVMS, but I guess the issue would be the same) - based on the fact that you don't want to probe for each & every DASD in the config - as indicated by various people - yet I am still wondering why - but that's another story[1]... So, doing a mkinitrd/zipl whenever a DASD is added just 'in case' (it has influence over the root fs) - seems like a sane precautionary measure ! What I was (and still) curious about, is the (eventual) requirement to mkinitrd/zipl for a volume that not whatsoever related to the root fs ! But then again.. maybe there isn't any such requirement ! In which case, then.. My question was moot to start with[2] - and I'll go back to my corner ! --Ivan [1] If you were to probe every DASD in the config, the VG would get it's PV fulfillment, and there would be no need to mkinitrd/zipl.. but then we're back to the 'too many volumes take too long problem !'. [2] But then again, that's why we love the Open Source/Free Software (take your pick) environment[3].. We *KNOW* what's going on - so - instead of bickering about unknown quantities, we're arguing about concepts because the implementation is public... We're not arguing about whether byte 2 bit 1 should be 1 or 0 for something to work.. but instead, we're arguing about the meaning of byte 2 bit 1 ! [3] Then again, if the whole discussion is annoying people, it's possible there are better venues for this, although I don't think the linux-s390 kernel ML would be a better choice ! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
