Colin Guthrie skrev 31.10.2011 19:47:
'Twas brillig, and Thomas Backlund at 31/10/11 17:06 did gyre and gimble:
Michael Scherer skrev 31.10.2011 18:07:
Le dimanche 30 octobre 2011 à 14:19 +0200, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
I'm saying moving the stuff that is _really_ needed, not based on "udev
might run"...
well, thinking some more on it I guess the real design flaw (not systemd
specific) is using all of udev in init. Init should not care about more
than getting disc access (and probably network for pxe boots)
That's the point that Lennart make, ie :
"we used to have / to mount all partition and /usr to be mounted, now,
we have initramfs to mount /, and then / to mount /usr, so it would be
simpler to merge / and /usr"
-ENOTCONVINCED
:)
Just have initramfs mount / and /usr, no need to merge.
Yes, this is exactly what is intended, but it depends on the use case:
Then I have misread something somewhere along the way... :/
For simple installs, such as on my laptop or typical "desktop" linux,
then having separate / and /usr is something I've specifically avoided
for just about ever (I sometimes have separate /boot for "complicated
rootfs" reasons and I almost always have a separate /home, but other
than that, I like to keep my desktops/laptops simple). In other words
there just are not sufficient benefits in doing this.
Yes,
I agree for the desktop/laptop/pad/ use there is no need for splitting
besides /home and maybe separate /boot if you want to use encryption.
But on the server, especially on a farm of servers with a potentially
shared /usr across several machines, then yes, keeping it as something
that can be mounted by the initramfs is perfectly feasible. This is a
specific use case that Lennart + Co are trying to design for.
Ok, this is exactly the part that have raised my concerns that it was
about to be "forgotten" in favour of "simplicity".
Server installs usually want to be more "free" to finetune.
Another use case is to be able to split up the system on more harddisks
to even the load on the disks.
And yet another is simply to get more space depending on hw.
(yes I know lvm exists but it's also an extra layer / point of failure
that is not always worth it)
But if this part is the "some specific usecases" then I guess I need to
start re-reading some stuff :)
--
Thomas
