From: Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net>
To: Jeremy Katz <katzj@redhat.com>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
initramfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dracut -- Cross distribution initramfs infrastructure
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:50:21 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87skojrm5e.fsf@rimspace.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9C4F1B7D-CCBC-48D7-8624-9A7C314C1590@redhat.com> (Jeremy Katz's message of "Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:56:47 -0500")
Jeremy Katz <katzj@redhat.com> writes:
> On Dec 19, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:55:26PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>
>>> The goal of the initrd is to activate and mount the root fs.
>>> And the root fs _only_. Every other system should be configured
>>> once the main system is running.
[...]
>> There may also be times when it is useful to operate on the root
>> filesystem in some way before it is mounted; in most cases the
>> operation can bedone on a filesystem mounted read-only, yes --- but at
>> the cost of needing to reboot afterwards if the root filesystem needs
>> to be modified by said userspace tool.
>
> I think that once you start getting into this realm, though, you end
> up with an incredibly over-complicated and slow initramfs. If we
> instead focus on keeping things "fast", the reboot afterwards isn't
> that costly.
One of the features of the Debian / Ubuntu initramfs infrastructure,
which sounds remarkably like your design (or vice-versa), is that it
drops all the "standard" drivers into the initramfs.
This is, to me, worth several minutes of additional boot time, in terms
of flexibility: being able to modify the hardware and be confident that
the appropriate drivers are in place already makes life much, much
easier.
(In practice I doubt this adds more than a second or five to boot time;
certainly, it takes no longer to get to rootfs mounted than the RHEL 4
systems that have nothing but what is essential in the initrd...)
So, it would certainly be my hope — with my systems administration hat
on — that your proposed system would support that similar operation as
an option, at least.
Personally, I think it makes the right default: better correct than
fast, but obviously tastes vary there.
Regards,
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-20 14:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-17 18:54 Dracut -- Cross distribution initramfs infrastructure Jeremy Katz
2008-12-17 19:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-12-18 7:36 ` Hannes Reinecke
2008-12-19 7:41 ` Seewer Philippe
2008-12-19 8:18 ` Bernhard Walle
2008-12-19 13:55 ` Hannes Reinecke
2008-12-19 15:27 ` Theodore Tso
2008-12-19 16:56 ` Jeremy Katz
2008-12-20 13:50 ` Daniel Pittman [this message]
2008-12-20 18:22 ` Dave Jones
2009-01-07 16:04 ` Hannes Reinecke
2008-12-17 19:31 ` Neil Horman
2008-12-18 9:27 ` Loïc Grenié
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87skojrm5e.fsf@rimspace.net \
--to=daniel@rimspace.net \
--cc=initramfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=katzj@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox