Re: Btrfs in Silverblue

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Di, 14.07.20 07:09, Chris Murphy (lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:

> > > Why at boot time? Well if your default subvolume contains a recent
> > > update that for some reason renders it unbootable, it might be nice to
> > > be able to pick a prior snapshot. That's how they do this. It isn't
> > > how we have to do it, but that's the example that we know works
> > > because it's actually designed, planned, implemented and maintained.
> >
> > Nah, this kind of selection you do in the initrd, not in the boot loader.
>
> There are two examples of the latter: (open)SUSE and rpm-ostree. I'm
> not aware of any examples of the former.

I am sorry, what? rpm-ostree has a grub module it needs to operate?

Really?

> > i.e. if /home is split out into its own fs, then you give it the home
> > partition uuid type, but if not, then it is just part of the root
> > partition (as that is the immedate parent directory) and thus sits in
> > the same partition as the root fs.
>
> In the case of Btrfs, sysroot and home are in their own subvolumes
> (separate namespace, separate btrees). Neither is a parent of the
> other.

Well, still, /home is conceptually ultimately a child of /, regardless
how you organize stuff on the lowest layer...

> > That all said, it might make sense to define a new partition type uuid
> > for "btrfs-all-in-one" file systems, because for that it might make
> > sense to even allow multiple OS archs in the same btrfs file system,
> > e.g. have a subvol /_root.fedora32.x86_64 for the x86_64 version of
> > the OS, but /_root.fedora32.arm64 for the ARM version and then have a
> > single fs that can be booted on either arch.
>
> OK. Roll the dice, add another GUID to the spec.
>
> Note however that there's resistance supporting arbitrary partition
> type GUIDs, due to tooling. The installer depends on 'parted' for
> doing the partitioning and 'parted' has no concept of arbitrary
> partition types, each one must be explicitly added, and they are way
> behind where fdisk and gdisk are. As in, nothing in the Discoverable
> Partition Spec is in 'parted' right now. I've asked multiple times
> over the years.

use libfdisk instead?

> > Well, that's very old, I would't do it like that anymore. But yeah,
> > there are ideas there that are related.
>
> The naming schema would be nice to get figured out. Right now the
> naming of subvolumes is user domain in the installer. This concept
> necessarily takes that away, it becomes system domain. And what
> happens if a user changes the name? Is it a bad idea to stuff a copy
> of this information in an XATTR so it can be restored? The schema
> needs to account for snapshotting and rollbacks. I'm not sure how much
> information really should be encoded in a subvolume name.

We manage to name RPMs with versions, epochs, archs and so on, I doubt
we need much more for naming subvolumes to auto-assemble.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering, Berlin
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux