On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 7:36 PM Grant Taylor
wrote:
>
> That assumes that there is a boot loader. There wasn't one with the old
> Slackware boot & root disks.
>
Linux no longer supports direct booting from the MBR.
arch/x86/boot/header.S
bugger_off_msg:
.ascii "Use a boot loader.\r\n"
Peter Humphrey:
...
> In my case I
> haven't needed an initramfs so far, and now I see I still don't need one -
> why
> add complication? Having set the kernel option to assemble raid devices at
> boot time, now that /dev/md0 has been created I find it ready to go as soon
> as
> I boot up
On 01/29/2019 02:17 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
AFAIR the initramfs code is built into the kernel, not as an option. The
reason given for using a cpio archive is that it is simple and available
in the kernel. The kernel itself has an initramfs built into it which is
executed automatically, it's
On Tuesday, 29 January 2019 20:37:31 GMT Wol's lists wrote:
> On 28/01/2019 16:56, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > I must be missing something, in spite of following the wiki instructions.
> > Can someone help an old duffer out?
>
> Gentoo wiki, or kernel raid wiki?
Gentoo wiki.
It's fascinating to
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:37:43 -0700, Grant Taylor wrote:
> > An initramfs typically loads kernel modules, assuming there are any
> > that need to be loaded.
>
> And where is it going to load them from if said kernel doesn't support
> initrds or loop back devices or the archive or file system
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 20:58:37 +, Wol's lists wrote:
> On 29/01/2019 19:41, Grant Taylor wrote:
> > The kernel /must/ have (at least) the minimum drivers (and dependencies)
> > to be able to boot strap. It doesn't matter if it's boot strapping an
> > initramfs or otherwise.
> > All of
On 29/01/2019 19:41, Grant Taylor wrote:
The kernel /must/ have (at least) the minimum drivers (and dependencies)
to be able to boot strap. It doesn't matter if it's boot strapping an
initramfs or otherwise.
All of these issues about lack of a driver are avoided by having the
driver
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:37 PM Grant Taylor
wrote:
>
> On 01/29/2019 01:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Uh, an initramfs typically does not exec a second kernel. I guess it
> > could, in which case that kernel would need its own initramfs to get
> > around to mounting its root filesystem.
On 01/29/2019 01:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Uh, an initramfs typically does not exec a second kernel. I guess it
could, in which case that kernel would need its own initramfs to get
around to mounting its root filesystem. Presumably at some point you'd
want to have your system stop kexecing
On 28/01/2019 16:56, Peter Humphrey wrote:
I must be missing something, in spite of following the wiki instructions. Can
someone help an old duffer out?
Gentoo wiki, or kernel raid wiki?
Cheers,
Wol
On 29/01/2019 19:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
It would surely be a bug if the kernel were capable of manipulating RAIDs, but
not of initialising
and mounting them.
Linus would disagree with you there, and has said as much publicly.
He does not consider initialization to be the responsibility of
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:15 PM Grant Taylor
wrote:
>
> On 01/29/2019 01:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> You seem to be focusing on the second kernel that the initramfs execs.
>
Uh, an initramfs typically does not exec a second kernel. I guess it
could, in which case that kernel would need its
On 01/29/2019 01:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Obviously. Hence the reason I said that it shouldn't matter if the
module is built in-kernel.
I'm saying it does matter.
I'm not sure why it seems like we're talking past each other here...
You seem to be focusing on the second kernel that the
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 2:59 PM Grant Taylor
wrote:
>
> On 01/29/2019 12:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > It couldn't. Hence the reason I said, "obviously it needs whatever
> > drivers it needs, but I don't see why it would care if they are built
> > -in-kernel vs in-module."
>
> You are missing
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 2:52 PM Grant Taylor
wrote:
>
> On 01/29/2019 12:33 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > However, as soon as you throw so much as a second hard drive in a system
> > that becomes unreliable.
>
> Mounting the root based on UUID (or labels) is *WONDERFUL*. It makes
> the system
On 01/29/2019 12:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
It couldn't. Hence the reason I said, "obviously it needs whatever
drivers it needs, but I don't see why it would care if they are built
-in-kernel vs in-module."
You are missing what I'm saying.
Even the kernel the initramfs uses MUST have
On 29/01/2019 16:48, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hello, All.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 09:32:19 -0700, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 01/29/2019 09:08 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
I'd rather not have to create an initramfs if I can avoid it. Would it
be sensible to start the raid volume by putting an mdadm
On 01/29/2019 12:33 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
If all my boxes could function reliably without an initramfs I probably
would do it that way.
;-)
However, as soon as you throw so much as a second hard drive in a system
that becomes unreliable.
I disagree.
I've been reliably booting and
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 2:41 PM Grant Taylor
wrote:
>
> On 01/29/2019 12:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > That is news to me. Obviously it needs whatever drivers it needs, but
> > I don't see why it would care if they are built in-kernel vs in-module.
>
> How is a kernel going to be able to
On 01/29/2019 12:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Not sure why you would think this. It is just a cpio archive of a root
filesystem that the kernel runs as a generic bootstrap.
IMHO the simple fact that such is used when it is not needed is ugly part.
This means that your bootstrap for
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 2:22 PM Grant Taylor
wrote:
>
> On 01/29/2019 12:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > I don't see the value in using a different configuration on a box simply
> > because it happens to work on that particular box. Dracut is a more
> > generic solution that allows me to keep
On 01/29/2019 12:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
I don't see the value in using a different configuration on a box simply
because it happens to work on that particular box. Dracut is a more
generic solution that allows me to keep hosts the same.
And if all the boxes in the fleet can function
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 1:54 PM Grant Taylor
wrote:
>
> On 01/29/2019 10:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Can't say I've tried it recently, but I'd be shocked if it changed much.
> > The linux kernel guys generally consider this somewhat deprecated
> > behavior, and prefer that users use an
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 1:39 PM Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:58:38 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Can't say I've tried it recently, but I'd be shocked if it changed
> > much. The linux kernel guys generally consider this somewhat
> > deprecated behavior, and prefer that
On 01/29/2019 10:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Can't say I've tried it recently, but I'd be shocked if it changed much.
The linux kernel guys generally consider this somewhat deprecated
behavior, and prefer that users use an initramfs for this sort of thing.
It is exactly the sort of problem an
Hello, Rich.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:58:38 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:48 AM Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 09:32:19 -0700, Grant Taylor wrote:
> > > On 01/29/2019 09:08 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > I'd rather not have to create an
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:48 AM Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 09:32:19 -0700, Grant Taylor wrote:
> > On 01/29/2019 09:08 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > I'd rather not have to create an initramfs if I can avoid it. Would it
> > > be sensible to start the raid volume by
On 01/29/2019 09:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
However, there's another quirk which bit me: something in the Gentoo
installation disk took it upon itself to renumber my /dev/md2 to
/dev/md127. I raised bug #539162 for this, but it was decided not to
fix it. (This was back in February 2015.)
Hello, All.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 09:32:19 -0700, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 01/29/2019 09:08 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > I'd rather not have to create an initramfs if I can avoid it. Would it
> > be sensible to start the raid volume by putting an mdadm --assemble
> > command into, say,
On 01/29/2019 09:08 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
I'd rather not have to create an initramfs if I can avoid it. Would it
be sensible to start the raid volume by putting an mdadm --assemble
command into, say, /etc/local.d/raid.start? The machine doesn't boot
from /dev/md0.
Drive by comment.
I
On Tuesday, 29 January 2019 16:08:27 GMT Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 January 2019 09:20:46 GMT Mick wrote:
>
> Hello Mick,
>
> --->8
>
> > Do you have CONFIG_MD_RAID1 (or whatever it should be these days) built in
> > your kernel?
>
> Yes, I have, but something else was missing:
On Tuesday, 29 January 2019 09:20:46 GMT Mick wrote:
Hello Mick,
--->8
> Do you have CONFIG_MD_RAID1 (or whatever it should be these days) built in
> your kernel?
Yes, I have, but something else was missing: CONFIG_DM_RAID=y. This is in the
SCSI section, which I'd overlooked (I hadn't needed
Hello Peter,
On Monday, 28 January 2019 16:56:57 GMT Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Hello list,
> When I run "mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sda2
> /dev/ sdb2", this is what I get:
>
> # mdadm --stop /dev/md0
> mdadm: stopped /dev/md0
> # mdadm: /dev/sda2 appears to contain an
Hello list,
(I've been off-line for ten days and I haven't yet caught up with the list. I
had to send my machine to its maker to have a cooling-system hardware fault
fixed.)
I've added two SSDs to my workstation, intending to create a RAID-1 array on
them to store backups (which may be
34 matches
Mail list logo
