[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060802064742.GD28815@percy.comedia.it>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 08:47:42 +0200
From: Luca Berra <bluca@...edia.it>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>
Cc: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: let md auto-detect 128+ raid members, fix potential race condition
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@...edia.it
Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists