Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1226943 > unrolled thread

Re: Failover root devices

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  Re: Failover root devices Ortwin Glück <odi@odi.ch> - 2015-09-17 13:50 +0200
    Re: Failover root devices Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> - 2015-09-17 14:00 +0200
      Re: Failover root devices Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 19:50 +0200
        Re: Failover root devices Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> - 2015-09-17 19:50 +0200
          Re: Failover root devices Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2015-09-17 20:00 +0200
            Re: Failover root devices Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> - 2015-09-17 20:10 +0200
              Re: Failover root devices Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2015-09-17 20:20 +0200
                Re: Failover root devices Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> - 2015-09-17 20:20 +0200
                  Re: Failover root devices Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2015-09-17 20:20 +0200
                    Re: Failover root devices Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> - 2015-09-17 20:30 +0200
                      Re: Failover root devices Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> - 2015-09-17 20:30 +0200
                        Re: Failover root devices Ortwin Glück <odi@odi.ch> - 2015-09-18 17:00 +0200
                          Re: Failover root devices Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> - 2015-09-18 17:10 +0200
                            Re: Failover root devices Ortwin Glück <odi@odi.ch> - 2015-09-18 17:10 +0200
                              Re: Failover root devices Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:40 +0200
                      Re: Failover root devices Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2015-09-17 20:30 +0200
                Re: Failover root devices Harald Hoyer <harald.hoyer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 20:30 +0200
                  Re: Failover root devices Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> - 2015-09-17 20:30 +0200
                    Re: Failover root devices Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2015-09-17 20:40 +0200
                      Re: Failover root devices Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> - 2015-09-17 20:40 +0200
                        Re: Failover root devices Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2015-09-17 20:50 +0200
                  Re: Failover root devices Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2015-09-17 20:30 +0200
        Re: Failover root devices Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 20:40 +0200
          Re: Failover root devices Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2015-09-17 20:50 +0200
            Re: Failover root devices Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 16:50 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#1227330

Am 17.09.2015 um 20:35 schrieb Drew DeVault:
>> Harald is the main developer...
> 
> Hah, egg on my face. I still see one big issue with this - no waiting for the root device to come online. If the primary device is slow to get going, then it will be skipped in
> favor of the secondary device even if present.

That's a good point. So, yeah I think a wait_for_dev is missing.
Harald?

Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1227306

Am 17.09.2015 um 20:27 schrieb Harald Hoyer:
> On 17.09.2015 20:17, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 17.09.2015 um 20:05 schrieb Drew DeVault:
>>>> Better send a patch to dracut folks. :-)
>>>> Major distros use it and if the feature is nice other initramfs implementations will adopt it too.
>>>
>>> dracut is the common one sure, but I'm still not confident that it's the right place to put this. How would that feature look? Would we have the root= parameter use a format that's
>>> specific to dracut and no longer a sane kernel parameter? Would we use a second parameter and discard the root= parameter? I think all of these are suboptimal solutions. No, the
>>> right way, I think, is to implement this in the kernel and let the init systems take it from there themselves.
>>
>> I'd patch dracut to support kernel command lines like "root=/dev/diskX root=/dev/diskY". initramfs is allowed to parse/use the command line.
>> So, you can do what you want.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> //richard
> 
> 
> https://github.com/haraldh/dracut/blob/master/modules.d/95rootfs-block/rootfallback.sh

Awesome! :-)

Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1227313

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2015-09-17 13:47, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-09-17  1:40 PM, Ortwin Glück wrote:
>>> You can do that completely in user space from an initramfs.
>>
>> Yep, I'm aware of that. I think it would still be useful for the kernel
>> to support it. Bonus - if the kernel supports it, there's a standard way
>> of doing it that would propegate down to the various initramfs designs
>> of the distros without having me write patches against all of them.
>> Right?
>
> I really don't see why we need this feature in-kernel as it can be
> done perfectly fine
> in userspace. Every non-trivial system needs an initramfs anyway these days.
>
Ha, not unless you're using systemd.  I have more than 2 dozen servers 
with complex setups that boot just fine without an initramfs.  Yes there 
is more setup done in initramfs these days, but it's still not actually 
needed in most cases except complicated storage setups.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1227334

Am 17.09.2015 um 20:37 schrieb Austin S Hemmelgarn:
> On 2015-09-17 13:47, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-17  1:40 PM, Ortwin Glück wrote:
>>>> You can do that completely in user space from an initramfs.
>>>
>>> Yep, I'm aware of that. I think it would still be useful for the kernel
>>> to support it. Bonus - if the kernel supports it, there's a standard way
>>> of doing it that would propegate down to the various initramfs designs
>>> of the distros without having me write patches against all of them.
>>> Right?
>>
>> I really don't see why we need this feature in-kernel as it can be
>> done perfectly fine
>> in userspace. Every non-trivial system needs an initramfs anyway these days.
>>
> Ha, not unless you're using systemd.  I have more than 2 dozen servers with complex setups that boot just fine without an initramfs.  Yes there is more setup done in initramfs
> these days, but it's still not actually needed in most cases except complicated storage setups.

I really don't count root=UUID... or root=LABEL... as complicated storage setup...

Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1227939

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2015-09-17 14:40, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 17.09.2015 um 20:37 schrieb Austin S Hemmelgarn:
>> On 2015-09-17 13:47, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-17  1:40 PM, Ortwin Glück wrote:
>>>>> You can do that completely in user space from an initramfs.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, I'm aware of that. I think it would still be useful for the kernel
>>>> to support it. Bonus - if the kernel supports it, there's a standard way
>>>> of doing it that would propegate down to the various initramfs designs
>>>> of the distros without having me write patches against all of them.
>>>> Right?
>>>
>>> I really don't see why we need this feature in-kernel as it can be
>>> done perfectly fine
>>> in userspace. Every non-trivial system needs an initramfs anyway these days.
>>>
>> Ha, not unless you're using systemd.  I have more than 2 dozen servers with complex setups that boot just fine without an initramfs.  Yes there is more setup done in initramfs
>> these days, but it's still not actually needed in most cases except complicated storage setups.
>
> I really don't count root=UUID... or root=LABEL... as complicated storage setup...
>
> Thanks,
> //richard
>
That's not what I mean, I mean stuff like /usr and /var on separate 
filesystems, in a couple of cases self-assembling MD arrays, and in a 
couple of cases ATAoE or iSCSI backed root filesystems on hardware that 
doesn't natively support booting such devices.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web