On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Jonathan Vasquez <jvasquez1011@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:36 AM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Jonathan Vasquez >> <jvasquez1011@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Simplicity and minimalism would be what motivates me the most. If I >>> don't need an initramfs to get my system boot up, why have one? I know >>> the benefits that initramfs provides, but I don't need any of them. >>> All I need my computer to do is start, find the kernel, boot my comp >>> to the terminal or X11 (depending on my setup). >> >> well, i hear ya, but i'd argue you already *have* the minimalist setup >> ... life is about balance friend :-) i'm not sure too many would >> agree (my time is more important that pedantic minimalism) hence >> support may be hard to come by. although, this paragraph is backed by >> little more than imaginary statistics and [possibly misguided] >> intuition. > > Well I'm not trying to be minimalistic just to be minimalistic. I'm > picky about how my things are organized on my system, and the files I > have installed. > If I have the power to remove something unnecessary, then I most > likely will remove it ;). I do agree with you that life is about > balance. I might go back to using an initramfs, > but not atm, probably when I learn how to make my own basic initramfs > haha with busybox and my own /init script (For learning purposes > primarily). > >>> My set up atm that lets me have GPT, GRUB2, LVM, all without needing >>> initramfs, and future proofs me the need to move the physical >>> partitions in the drive (not the logical ones inside the lvm) is: >>> >>> /dev/sda1 BIOS Boot Partition 32M >>> /dev/sda2 /boot ext2 100M >>> /dev/sda3 / ext4 2G >>> /dev/sda4 Linux LVM (name: arch) >> >> ... because you desire to drop the initramfs, you've lost the ability >> to manage / with LVM2, and that sux. 2GiB *might* be enough, never >> was nearly enough for me (though, i reject the idea of oodles of >> partitions) ... but what if it's not? by generating a teeny 4Mib >> file, you're / moves to LVM2, and you never have to rebuild the kern >> if you change FS, change hardware, change <insert here> ... dunno, >> nice trade off to me ... won't say anything further about it ;-) > > Yea.. I know it sucks.. previously my set up was just as you said, I > still have that setup in my old Arch drive (That I haven't formatted). > I'm assuming you already know how my old setup was since you mentioned > me losing the ability to manage / under LVM2. 2GB is more than needed, > 1GB would be more minimal, > but you just have to make sure you use the other partitions inside of > the LVM, since /usr, /var , etc take up a lot of space for > applications and packages. I agree, for a small initramfs I gain a > lot. > I wanted to see if this was possible under Arch, under my setup, > clearly it is, but it has a cost :(. > > As for rebuilding the kernel, I built support for ext2/3/4 directly > into the kernel. So if I need to switch to btrfs, I can recompile yes, > but it only takes me like 5-7 minutes to rebuild since my kernel is > just for my computer. I could also rebuild it months in advance with > btrfs support as well and not have to worry about it later on :). > Changing hardware, I hardly do this anymore, so doesn't really affect > me, if this happens, then I would gladly explore the kernel > configuration again and learn about my new system :). > >>> Created in a (read most, write last order .. if it matters inside LVM) >>> /dev/arch/swap 2G >>> /dev/arch/usr 10G >>> /dev/arch/tmp 10G >>> /dev/arch/opt 5G >>> /dev/arch/var 10G >>> /dev/arch/home 500G >> >> btw, if swap is on LVM2, you'll want to flag it contiguous (-Cy on >> `lvcreate`) if you didn't already. also, not sure if you need it, but >> hibernation will be impossible without initramfs if swap is on LVM2. >> lastly, be aware that a separate `/usr` is rapidly degrading into a >> next-to-unsupported/awkwardly-handled configuration ... while a lack >> of initramfs avoids the need to mount it pre-root, you may still have >> issues during early boot ... especially since soon, if not now, Arch >> initscripts will fully expect `/usr` to be available before pid 1 (Tom >> or someone else would need to confirm this). > > Yup, my swap was made contiguous. I don't hibernate and took that into > account when making my partition layouts. I just suspend to ram which > can be done still in my layout. That would be an unfortunate event if > I am required to have to do some of those things. > >> -- >> >> C Anthony > > Overall, as I said in the beginning, I may end up going back to using > an initramfs to simplify the partition layouts in general. Using an > initramfs, pretty much, has nothing but advantages. > > Although hacking to see if something is possible surely is fun, .. if > only for a while. > -- > Jonathan Vasquez I was reading this and it reminded me of what you said Anthony: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove -- Jonathan Vasquez
