From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <199906021129.HAA17118@tequila.cs.yale.edu> From: "Stefan Monnier" Subject: [linux-lvm] Re: root filesystem in lvm Date: 02 Jun 1999 06:43:23 -0400 Sender: owner-linux-lvm Errors-To: owner-linux-lvm List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@msede.com [ I apologize if you receive multiple copies, but it seems that my earlier attempts didn't make it through. Is this a closed mailing-list ? - sm ] A while ago, Michael Marxmeier (mike@msede.com) mentioned: > However it should be possible to use LILO. As far as i understand > LILO uses partition relative block numbers to load the kernel image. > We just need to make sure that they are relative to the dos style > partition. How would LILO deal with a kernel image spread over several physical partitions (or even disks) (in case you not only want a root fs on LVM but a striped/mirrored/trucmuched one) ? > If included statically in the kernel the lvm driver could > execute the equivalent of a vgchange -ay and we should be able to > mount the root file system. That would be really neat. The initrd workaround is just that: a workaround. > However this will lead to some kernel bloat as some of the code which > currently resides un user space in lvmlib and vgchange must also be > present in the kernel. - how hard would it be ? - source code bloat: hopefully, the exact same source code can be shared between the kernel and the liblvm/vgchange (I deeply hate code duplication) - kernel bloat: how bad would it be ? how much of that extra code could be put in __INITFUNC (so that the bloat only impacts the on-disk kernel image, but not the in-memory one) ? Let's also not forget that the kernel bloat should be measured between 'linux+lvm+initrd' and 'linux+lvm+lvmroot'. Stefan