Date:	Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:02:09 -0400
From:	Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>
To:	Drew DeVault <sir@...wn.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Failover root devices

On 2015-09-16 20:16, Drew DeVault wrote:
> I would like to see Linux support multiple root devices, so that it can
> attempt one and move on to the next if it is not present. I've reviewed
> the relevant code during boot-up and it seems like a good place for me
> to submit my first patch, but I want to bring it up for discussion here
> on LKML first.
>
> The design I had in mind is something like this:
>
> root=device;device;device;...
>
> Where 'device' follows the current format (/dev/sdX, UUIDs, and so on,
> via name_to_dev_t). I would modify prepare_namespace to iterate through
> each offered root device until one works.
>
> My use-case for this feature is that I would like to be able to change
> the hardware of my machine and boot up differently based on what's
> present. In my case, I would like to install my system normally, with
> /boot on its own partition, and keep a seperate userspace on a flash
> drive. Then, during boot-up, if the flash drive is present, it would be
> used as the root device. If it's not present, a partition on disk would
> be selected.
I think this is an excellent idea, in addition to the above use-case, it 
would allow for distros to automatically launch a recovery image if the 
main root device has failed for some reason.

That said, using the term failover for this is probably not the best 
idea, many people associate it almost exclusively with online failover 
and high-availability setups, and trying to do something like that with 
the root file system is just asking for trouble (I'll be happy to go 
into specifics as to why if someone asks).
> The only potential roadblock with this feature that comes to mind is
> figuring out how to handle time-outs between root devices. I think it
> would be wise to choose a sensible default value, and provide another
> cmdline parameter to tweak it. The prepare_namespace flow might end up
> looking something like this:
>
> 1. Wait rootdelay seconds
> 2. Check 1st device, not present
> 3. Recheck 1st device until rootfailoverdelay seconds has passed
> 4. Move on to 2nd device, present -> boot
>
> Or:
>
> 1. Wait rootdelay seconds
> 2. Check 1st device, not present
> 3. Recheck 1st device until rootfailoverdelay seconds has passed
> 4. Move on to 2nd device, not present
> 5. Recheck 2st device until rootfailoverdelay seconds has passed
> 6. GOTO 2
>
> And so on.
As for this, I'd say default to the first method, and then provide an 
option to switch to the second (both have practical uses).
> I also need to research how the various init systems interact with this
> part of the boot process. I suspect systemd probably does something
> silly wrt waiting for the root device. Since this feature would (of
> course) be backwards compatible, it might be wise to just implement it
> here and let the init systems add support for the feature themselves.
If you're using an initramfs (which is a requirement from what I 
understand for using systemd), then this could be done entirely in the 
initramfs.  The issue with that is that there is no standard syntax for 
doing it, and no way to do it without an initramfs (both of which would 
be nice to have).
> Advice? Who should I send my patches to when they're ready? Please CC
> me, I do not subscribe to LKML.
Use scripts/getmaintainer.pl (or just check the MAINTAINERS file 
directly) to determine this, but make sure to Cc at least LKML for the 
changes as well.


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (3019 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists