Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #199972 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-11 10:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2018-09-13 05:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 91 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
root on ZFS Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 10:50 +0200
Re: root on ZFS <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-09-11 11:10 +0200
Re: root on ZFS Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 14:20 +0200
Re: root on ZFS <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-09-11 14:50 +0200
Re: root on ZFS Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2018-09-11 15:00 +0200
Re: root on ZFS Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2018-09-11 14:50 +0200
ext2 for /boot ??? -- WAS: Re: root on ZFS Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2018-09-11 20:10 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? -- WAS: Re: root on ZFS Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2018-09-11 20:30 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? -- WAS: Re: root on ZFS Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-09-11 20:40 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2018-09-12 01:40 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Lee <ler762@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 05:40 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 07:50 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-09-12 11:20 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> - 2018-09-12 11:40 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-09-12 21:00 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> - 2018-09-12 21:40 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-09-12 23:00 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-09-13 00:00 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-09-14 05:30 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-09-14 06:10 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-09-14 14:40 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-09-14 14:50 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2018-09-14 17:10 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 18:30 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-09-14 20:00 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2018-09-15 00:50 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-09-15 08:50 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2018-09-15 18:00 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 00:00 +0200
Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2018-09-16 00:50 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-09-17 20:10 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 20:20 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2018-09-18 20:10 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2018-09-19 05:00 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2018-09-19 17:50 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Igor Cicimov <icicimov@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 01:10 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 18:20 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-09-26 19:20 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 20:20 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2018-09-27 10:00 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 17:40 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Igor Cicimov <icicimov@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 13:10 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 03:20 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 08:50 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2018-09-30 12:10 +0200
Re: Decrypting LUKS from initramfs; was: Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 23:40 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-09-26 11:20 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-09-14 15:10 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-09-14 20:50 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-09-15 00:10 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-09-15 09:20 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 16:40 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-10 00:00 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2018-09-15 01:30 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 15:20 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2018-09-14 16:50 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-09-14 19:30 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-09-14 22:20 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2018-09-15 08:50 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-09-15 10:10 +0200
The big, the bloated and the hungry (Was: ext2 for /boot ???) Étienne Mollier <etienne.mollier@mailoo.org> - 2018-09-15 10:20 +0200
Re: The big, the bloated and the hungry Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2018-09-15 10:50 +0200
Re: The big, the bloated and the hungry Étienne Mollier <etienne.mollier@mailoo.org> - 2018-09-15 11:30 +0200
Re: The big, the bloated and the hungry Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 16:50 +0200
Re: The big, the bloated and the hungry Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 19:00 +0200
Re: The big, the bloated and the hungry Étienne Mollier <etienne.mollier@mailoo.org> - 2018-09-18 21:10 +0200
Re: The big, the bloated and the hungry (Was: ext2 for /boot ???) Thakur Mahashaya <thmsh@yandex.ru> - 2018-09-15 12:50 +0200
Re: The big, the bloated and the hungry (Was: ext2 for /boot ???) Thakur Mahashaya <thmsh@yandex.ru> - 2018-09-15 12:50 +0200
Re: The big, the bloated and the hungry (Was: ext2 for /boot ???) Thakur Mahashaya <thmsh@yandex.ru> - 2018-09-15 13:00 +0200
Re: The big, the bloated and the hungry etienne.mollier@mailoo.org - 2018-09-16 12:20 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-09-26 11:10 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-09-14 14:50 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 06:40 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-09-14 17:40 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-09-14 21:00 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-09-26 11:10 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 08:10 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2018-09-12 08:20 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 09:00 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2018-09-12 11:20 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2018-09-12 12:30 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-09-12 15:50 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 17:40 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2018-09-12 18:00 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2018-09-12 18:30 +0200
Re: ext2 for /boot ??? -- WAS: Re: root on ZFS <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-09-12 09:50 +0200
Re: root on ZFS Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 08:00 +0200
Re: root on ZFS David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2018-09-12 02:40 +0200
Re: root on ZFS Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2018-09-12 16:00 +0200
Re: root on ZFS David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2018-09-13 04:30 +0200
Re: root on ZFS Matthew Crews <mattcrews@mattcrews.com> - 2018-09-13 05:00 +0200
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 10:50 +0200 |
| Subject | root on ZFS |
| Message-ID | <wwMwV-v9-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hello. Currently I use ZFS for making a pool of disks, but the system itself is installed on 2 SSD disks using MD to mirror. How is now ZFS on handling booting from ZFS mirror. Can I start use ZFS as root filesystem on latest Debian? Is it stable on updates? Thanks for suggestions.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 11:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wwMQh-Qt-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199972 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:42:43AM +0300, Mimiko wrote: > Hello. > > Currently I use ZFS for making a pool of disks, but the system itself is installed on 2 SSD disks using MD to mirror. > > How is now ZFS on handling booting from ZFS mirror. Can I start use ZFS as root filesystem on latest Debian? Is it stable on updates? > > Thanks for suggestions. Your question is still a bit unclear: do you want to have just the _root_ partition as ZFS? That should be easy, just booting a kernel which understands ZFS and can mount that as /. Do you also want to have the _boot_ partition there? I.e. that partition where the kernel images and the initramfs go. Then your boot loader (most probably GRUB?) also should be able to understand ZFS -- at least to a certain extent. GRUB can read ZFS since 1.99. The one current in Debian stable is 2.02 -- so your chances seem good on both fronts... Cheers https://bits.debian.org/2016/05/what-does-it-mean-that-zfs-is-in-debian.html https://salsa.debian.org/zfsonlinux-team/zfs https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/zfs-linux http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2011-05/msg00008.html - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAluXhSEACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZwaQCeIbK7VdDM3wt5eEx+IOnDY1ij La0An08yIVCY3UOhQ1k1WPk1uWjMxJK8 =HWvX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wwPOa-2zU-41@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199974 |
On 11.09.2018 12:04, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >> Hello. >> >> Currently I use ZFS for making a pool of disks, but the system itself is installed on 2 SSD disks using MD to mirror. >> >> How is now ZFS on handling booting from ZFS mirror. Can I start use ZFS as root filesystem on latest Debian? Is it stable on updates? >> >> Thanks for suggestions. > Your question is still a bit unclear: do you want to have just the > _root_ partition as ZFS? That should be easy, just booting a kernel > which understands ZFS and can mount that as /. > > Do you also want to have the_boot_ partition there? I.e. that > partition where the kernel images and the initramfs go. Then your > boot loader (most probably GRUB?) also should be able to understand > ZFS -- at least to a certain extent. GRUB can read ZFS since 1.99. > The one current in Debian stable is 2.02 -- so your chances seem > good on both fronts... Thank you for response. I don't know how I will do it. But since GRUB in Debian understands ZFS, then I may be do the second. My question is more about if I should use ZFS as boot, or stick with old MD raid. Would not ZFS booting break if an update to zfs will be applied? Right now sometimes ZFS mounts are not imported automatically on system reboot. And I must manually do zfs import. So I am worried that this will happen before booting the system and I will have to use some recovery.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 14:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wwQhb-2J7-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199982 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:17:11PM +0300, Mimiko wrote: > On 11.09.2018 12:04, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > >>Hello. > >> > >>Currently I use ZFS for making a pool of disks, but the system itself is installed on 2 SSD disks using MD to mirror. [...] > >Do you also want to have the_boot_ partition there? [...] > Thank you for response. > > I don't know how I will do it. But since GRUB in Debian understands ZFS, then I may be do the second. > > My question is more about if I should use ZFS as boot, or stick with old MD raid. Would not ZFS booting break if an update to zfs will be applied? > > Right now sometimes ZFS mounts are not imported automatically on > system reboot. And I must manually do zfs import. So I am worried > that this will happen before booting the system and I will have to > use some recovery. Well, recovery might be more "interesting" if you have also boot on ZFS :-) I can't answer your second question, because I haven't any experience with ZFS. By what you say, for me it'd be too finnicky to put /boot and / on it. I'd keep your current setup (unless you want to learn, and pay some price for it). In the last case, I'd practice with recovery procedures before Munrphy's Monster hits you. Cheers - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAluXuQwACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZ5ZgCfdA2POhuwozhUTJBV7OVZKNef pNgAnjBwEhpNF1JxvQZrGsj0ZvLyAMRJ =zcfR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 15:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wwQqS-2M2-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199982 |
On 9/11/18 5:17 AM, Mimiko wrote: > My question is more about if I should use ZFS as boot, or stick with old MD raid. Would not ZFS booting break if an update to zfs will be applied? If you intend on using ZFS RAID, do a ZFS RAIDZ pool and not MDADM. ZFS handles all of the functions of RAID management and is generally superior to MDADM. > Right now sometimes ZFS mounts are not imported automatically on > system reboot. And I must manually do zfs import. So I am worried that > this will happen before booting the system and I will have to use some > recovery. This shouldn't be a problem if you set up your ZFS / root partition and various pools and datasets correctly. -Matt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 14:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <wwQhc-2J7-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199974 |
On 9/11/18 2:04 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:42:43AM +0300, Mimiko wrote: >> Hello. >> >> Currently I use ZFS for making a pool of disks, but the system itself is installed on 2 SSD disks using MD to mirror. >> >> How is now ZFS on handling booting from ZFS mirror. Can I start use ZFS as root filesystem on latest Debian? Is it stable on updates? >> >> Thanks for suggestions. > > Your question is still a bit unclear: do you want to have just the > _root_ partition as ZFS? That should be easy, just booting a kernel > which understands ZFS and can mount that as /. > > Do you also want to have the _boot_ partition there? I.e. that > partition where the kernel images and the initramfs go. Then your > boot loader (most probably GRUB?) also should be able to understand > ZFS -- at least to a certain extent. GRUB can read ZFS since 1.99. > The one current in Debian stable is 2.02 -- so your chances seem > good on both fronts... I'm not sure about the /boot partition, but its not difficult to get your / partition on ZFS. See the ZFSOnLinux Wiki: https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/Debian-Stretch-Root-on-ZFS My recommendation is to use a separate /boot partition and make it EXT2. -Matt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 20:10 +0200 |
| Subject | ext2 for /boot ??? -- WAS: Re: root on ZFS |
| Message-ID | <wwVgR-5Oa-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #199985 |
Hi, On 11/09/18 22:48, Matthew Crews wrote: > My recommendation is to use a separate /boot partition and make it EXT2. Why not at least ext3? I don't baulk at ext4 btw for /boot -- I can never understand why ext2 is recommended when ext4 gives no trouble and has other advantages, even ext3 has journaling that ext2 does not. Kind Regards AndrewM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 20:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? -- WAS: Re: root on ZFS |
| Message-ID | <wwVAe-5U7-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200003 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
My thought process is that there's no reason for any advanced features in /boot since it should rarely change (aside from the occasional kernel or driver update). That said, theres no real harm in using a different filesystem for /boot, such as ext3, ext4, btrfs, etc., so long as your bootloader (ie GRUB) can read files from it. Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com), Swiss-based encrypted email. -------- Original Message -------- On Sep 11, 2018, 11:01, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/09/18 22:48, Matthew Crews wrote: >> My recommendation is to use a separate /boot partition and make it EXT2. > > Why not at least ext3? I don't baulk at ext4 btw for /boot -- I can > never understand why ext2 is recommended when ext4 gives no trouble and > has other advantages, even ext3 has journaling that ext2 does not. > > Kind Regards > AndrewM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 20:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? -- WAS: Re: root on ZFS |
| Message-ID | <wwVJU-5Xn-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200003 |
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 04:01:10AM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote: >On 11/09/18 22:48, Matthew Crews wrote: >> My recommendation is to use a separate /boot partition and make it EXT2. > >Why not at least ext3? I don't baulk at ext4 btw for /boot -- I can >never understand why ext2 is recommended when ext4 gives no trouble and >has other advantages, even ext3 has journaling that ext2 does not. The only reason to use ext2 would be to maximize compatability. I don't think that's a particularly compelling reason, OTOH a fsck on /boot shouldn't really take long anyway, so it probably won't hurt much. Mike Stone
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 01:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? |
| Message-ID | <wx0qe-j9-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200003 |
Andrew McGlashan composed on 2018-09-12 04:01 (UTC+1000): > Matthew Crews wrote: >> My recommendation is to use a separate /boot partition and make it EXT2. > Why not at least ext3? I don't baulk at ext4 btw for /boot -- I can > never understand why ext2 is recommended when ext4 gives no trouble and > has other advantages, even ext3 has journaling that ext2 does not. How often does /boot get written to, as much as 5 minutes per year? All my /boot partitions are EXT2, (in part) /because/ it has no journaling. -- "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee <ler762@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 05:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? |
| Message-ID | <wx4at-2yC-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200016 |
On 9/11/18, Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> wrote: > Andrew McGlashan composed on 2018-09-12 04:01 (UTC+1000): > >> Matthew Crews wrote: > >>> My recommendation is to use a separate /boot partition and make it EXT2. > >> Why not at least ext3? I don't baulk at ext4 btw for /boot -- I can >> never understand why ext2 is recommended when ext4 gives no trouble and >> has other advantages, even ext3 has journaling that ext2 does not. > > How often does /boot get written to, as much as 5 minutes per year? All my > /boot partitions are EXT2, (in part) /because/ it has no journaling. Just out of curiosity - why would journaling be undesirable on a partition that is almost never written to? Thanks Lee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 07:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? |
| Message-ID | <wx6ch-3KZ-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200029 |
I've had root / and /boot on same partition ext4 with other directories, except /var, /home, /srv so system will boot even if those directories fill up. As most data will be at same disks (separated using MD in mirrors), failing both disks at same time will break the system any way. Some solution is to use super durable separate disk, storage for /boot that have low capacity (several GB) which will not fail. But this is not mition critical so I'm ok with ext4 and all on same partition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 11:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? |
| Message-ID | <wx9tw-5ME-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200029 |
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:32:56PM -0400, Lee wrote: >Just out of curiosity - why would journaling be undesirable on a >partition that is almost never written to? …I'm not sure what the answer to your question is, but with regards /boot and filesystems: on one EFI host of mine, I had a lot of problems with /boot/efi precisely because it couldn't be journalled (mandated to be vfat) and I had filesystem issues with it after every unscheduled power failure. I ended up bodging my system to mount it read-only by default, and had to add some apt hooks to remount it writeable for a selection of packages (e.g. new kernel, basically anything that might trigger an initramfs rebuild) Looking now it appears I reverted to legacy boot on this host and no longer have a /boot/efi partition at all. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 11:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? |
| Message-ID | <wx9MR-5SD-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200044 |
On 2018-09-12 10:11 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:32:56PM -0400, Lee wrote:
>>Just out of curiosity - why would journaling be undesirable on a
>>partition that is almost never written to?
>
> …I'm not sure what the answer to your question is, but with regards
> /boot and filesystems: on one EFI host of mine, I had a lot of problems
> with /boot/efi precisely because it couldn't be journalled (mandated to
> be vfat) and I had filesystem issues with it after every unscheduled
> power failure. I ended up bodging my system to mount it read-only by
> default, and had to add some apt hooks to remount it writeable for a
> selection of packages (e.g. new kernel, basically anything that might
> trigger an initramfs rebuild)
This sounds like you put /boot/efi on the same filesystem as /boot which
is not recommended or supported at all[1]. On my laptop there is only a
single file under /boot/efi, namely /boot/efi/EFI/debian/grubx64.efi -
which will be written to on updates to the grub-efi package, but not
when installing a new kernel or rebuilding an initramfs.
Cheers,
Sven
1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=163988
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 21:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? |
| Message-ID | <wxiwO-2sL-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200045 |
On Wed 12 Sep 2018 at 11:36:22 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2018-09-12 10:11 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:32:56PM -0400, Lee wrote: > >>Just out of curiosity - why would journaling be undesirable on a > >>partition that is almost never written to? > > > > …I'm not sure what the answer to your question is, but with regards > > /boot and filesystems: on one EFI host of mine, I had a lot of problems > > with /boot/efi precisely because it couldn't be journalled (mandated to > > be vfat) and I had filesystem issues with it after every unscheduled > > power failure. I ended up bodging my system to mount it read-only by > > default, and had to add some apt hooks to remount it writeable for a > > selection of packages (e.g. new kernel, basically anything that might > > trigger an initramfs rebuild) > > This sounds like you put /boot/efi on the same filesystem as /boot which > is not recommended or supported at all[1]. On my laptop there is only a > single file under /boot/efi, namely /boot/efi/EFI/debian/grubx64.efi - > which will be written to on updates to the grub-efi package, but not > when installing a new kernel or rebuilding an initramfs. > > 1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=163988 I read through this and couldn't work out its relevance. My boot partition doesn't contain any hard links: the link counts are all 1. The problem mentioned in the bug report (hard links are necessary to conserve space) would be irrelevant as there's so little demand for space in /boot. Now I think I can see the temptation to put all of /boot into the ESP: mine contains a tree of files under grub/ plus the eight kernel files one would expect—nothing that appears to conflict with a VFAT filesystem—so the EFI directory would fit nicely there. Examining the real ESP on this PC, I don't see any potential for name clashes between the windows files in there and what Debian users report is in their own ESPs (which appear to be safely stowed under the directory debian/). So what are the arguments against doing this (which I accept there may well be)? We'll ignore the eyebrow-raising need for /boot to be journalled, shall we? Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 21:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? |
| Message-ID | <wxj9v-2Ur-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200065 |
On 2018-09-12 13:50 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 12 Sep 2018 at 11:36:22 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2018-09-12 10:11 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:32:56PM -0400, Lee wrote:
>> >>Just out of curiosity - why would journaling be undesirable on a
>> >>partition that is almost never written to?
>> >
>> > …I'm not sure what the answer to your question is, but with regards
>> > /boot and filesystems: on one EFI host of mine, I had a lot of problems
>> > with /boot/efi precisely because it couldn't be journalled (mandated to
>> > be vfat) and I had filesystem issues with it after every unscheduled
>> > power failure. I ended up bodging my system to mount it read-only by
>> > default, and had to add some apt hooks to remount it writeable for a
>> > selection of packages (e.g. new kernel, basically anything that might
>> > trigger an initramfs rebuild)
>>
>> This sounds like you put /boot/efi on the same filesystem as /boot which
>> is not recommended or supported at all[1]. On my laptop there is only a
>> single file under /boot/efi, namely /boot/efi/EFI/debian/grubx64.efi -
>> which will be written to on updates to the grub-efi package, but not
>> when installing a new kernel or rebuilding an initramfs.
>>
>> 1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=163988
>
> I read through this and couldn't work out its relevance. My boot
> partition doesn't contain any hard links: the link counts are all 1.
> The problem mentioned in the bug report (hard links are necessary to
> conserve space) would be irrelevant as there's so little demand for
> space in /boot.
Sorry, I should have linked to the merged bug[1] instead which makes the
issue a bit more clear.
> Now I think I can see the temptation to put all of /boot into the ESP:
> mine contains a tree of files under grub/ plus the eight kernel files
> one would expect—nothing that appears to conflict with a VFAT
> filesystem—so the EFI directory would fit nicely there.
>
> Examining the real ESP on this PC, I don't see any potential for name
> clashes between the windows files in there and what Debian users
> report is in their own ESPs (which appear to be safely stowed under
> the directory debian/).
>
> So what are the arguments against doing this (which I accept there may
> well be)? We'll ignore the eyebrow-raising need for /boot to be
> journalled, shall we?
The killer argument is that you can install new kernels that way but not
update them, because dpkg requires the filesystem to support hardlinks
for that. Read Guillem's replies in [1].
Cheers,
Sven
1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825945
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 23:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? |
| Message-ID | <wxkoV-3zs-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200065 |
Le 12/09/2018 à 20:50, David Wright a écrit : > Now I think I can see the temptation to put all of /boot into the ESP: > mine contains a tree of files under grub/ plus the eight kernel files > one would expect—nothing that appears to conflict with a VFAT > filesystem—so the EFI directory would fit nicely there. > So what are the arguments against doing this (which I accept there may > well be)? It does not work with Debian current practices regarding the location of boot files. By default grub-install requires that the EFI partition be mounted on /boot/efi. If it is mounted on /boot, running grub-install would require using --efi-directory=/boot each time. if there are multiple installations, they may share the same EFI partition but /boot should not be shared. By default kernel files go into /boot, so if there are multiple installations sharing the same EFI partition, all their kernel files go to the same location, making it a mess for the boot loader and possibly causing conflicts between installation which may use the same file names. IMO this defeats the purpose of the EFI partition that multiple OSes can install boot files in it without conflicting with one another.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 00:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? |
| Message-ID | <wxlkZ-47D-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200065 |
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 01:50:40PM -0500, David Wright wrote: >So what are the arguments against doing this (which I accept there may >well be)? We'll ignore the eyebrow-raising need for /boot to be >journalled, shall we? That it's an oddball untested configuration with no benefits at all seems sufficient, no?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 05:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? |
| Message-ID | <wxMXT-3CI-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200075 |
On Wed 12 Sep 2018 at 17:50:13 (-0400), Michael Stone wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 01:50:40PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > So what are the arguments against doing this (which I accept there may > > well be)? We'll ignore the eyebrow-raising need for /boot to be > > journalled, shall we? > > That it's an oddball untested configuration with no benefits at all > seems sufficient, no? Not really, no. I don't think I've seen any real showstoppers. I can see it's not very practical as it may need a few workarounds, like where dpkg should install kernels (before moving them), taking care with kernels' names when placing them in /boot, and setting the target for grub-install. I was less worried about those kinds of things that about how the EFI firmware, and also non-linux OSes like Windows, would react to seeing files other than Boot and Microsoft in the EFI directory. As for criticisms of ext2 for /boot, there seems to be a lot of anecdote, confirmation bias and grasping at straws both here and on the web, and not much light. But testing the idea on my sole EFI system is not really possible, so I can't see how practicable it is. Perhaps best for me to stop doing thought experiments on it. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 06:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ext2 for /boot ??? |
| Message-ID | <wxNAB-43I-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #200065 |
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 01:50:40PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > So what are the arguments against doing this (which I accept there may > well be)? We'll ignore the eyebrow-raising need for /boot to be > journalled, shall we? Interesting thought! I've always used ext2 for /boot, 'cause "always". BUT, /boot is kinda critical (thus "ext2 is simpler"), BUT "data journaled" actually might be most sensible for /boot - ext3/4 by default (AIUI) only journals metadata, so that the fs is at least readable/ sane from kernel perspective, but when booting, we REALLY want sane data to be read, no? So, make /boot a big larger, say couple GiBs, and set data=journalled to "ensure" (FWIW) safe -data- writes to /boot - I see no drawbacks and only positives for this, WILL ABSOLUTELY DO THIS on my next reinstall (would use zfs, but want things simplest/ auto/ built in for any recovery ops...). So, THANKS for the GREAT thought :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web