From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: let md auto-detect 128+ raid members, fix potential race condition Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 08:47:42 +0200 Message-ID: <20060802064742.GD28815@percy.comedia.it> References: <20060730124139.45861b47.akpm@osdl.org> <17613.16090.470524.736889@cse.unsw.edu.au> <44CF9221.90902@tmr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Bill Davidsen , Neil Brown , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 06:32:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >Sure enough the LVM subsystem could make things better for one to not >need all of the PVs in the root-containing VG in order to be able to >mount root read-write, or at all, but if you think about it, if initrd it shouldn't need all of the PVs you just need all the pv where the rootfs is. >is set up such that you only bring up the devices that hold the actual >root device within the VG and then you change that, say by taking a >snapshot of root, moving it around, growing it, etc, you'd be better >off if you could still boot. So you do want all of the VG members to >be around, just in case. in this case just regenerate the initramfs after modifying the vg that contains root. I am fairly sure that kernel upgrades are far more frequent than the addirion of PVs to the root VG. >Yes, this is an argument against root on LVM, but there are arguments >*for* root on LVM as well, and there's no reason to not support both >behaviors equally well and let people figure out what works best for >them. No, this is just an argument against misusing root on lvm. L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \