Fedora 18 existing /usr partition -- need to merge into rootfs?

[Noah Cutler]

Harald

Ok, so then separate /usr is apparently not broken, or for now there's a
fallback mechanism (as of F18) to make things work in the event that /usr
is on its own partition.

Either way my setup is working (appears to), but it would be nice to really
know if separate usr is causing any issues at all, or if the intramfs
definitely has my back with /usr entry in /etc/fstab (i.e. no need for
dracut workaround suggested elsewhere in this thread).

Thanks for your awesome optimization guide, BTW:
http://www.harald-hoyer.de/personal/blog/fedora-17-boot-optimization-from-15-to-3-second

sub 4 second boot times are possible ;-)


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Harald Hoyer <harald.hoyer at gmail.com>wrote:

> Am 01.04.2013 14:47, schrieb Noah Cutler:
> > Hey all.
> >
> > I'm confused over the whole separate /usr partition is broken thing:
> > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
> >
> > From an email in current fedora-user thread we have:
> > "That should not be necessary.  And would break a very normal system
> > setup of using separate drives, *even more so than the blasted can't have
> > a separate /usr thing that happened recently*."
> >
> > During Fedora 18 fresh install with custom partitioning chosen, Anaconda
> > autocompletes mount points so I went with /boot, /, /user, /var, and
> /home
> > partitions.
> >
> > Everything appears to work swimmingly here after 1 month of use --
> separate /usr
> > partition does not appear to be broken...anymore??
> >
> > Just trying to future proof my setup; if it's better to merge /usr into
> rootfs,
> > so be it, better to do it early days with the new system.
> >
> > Otherwise, if someone can chime in here with some sage partitioning
> advice as to
> > how to proceed moving forward with Fedora, that would be much
> appreciated.
> >
> > FWIW, as a beginner the benefits I see in a diverse micro-managed
> partitioning
> > scheme (vs. the mega partition) is being able to fsck quickly; clone
> partitions
> > quickly (e.g. copy to additional disks), and prevent runaway logs and
> the like
> > (there are likely others).
> >
> > I'm thinking something like this would be "ideal" for a 256GB SSD:
> > |
> > /dev/sda1 /boot 181MB of 500MB
> > /dev/sda2 / 606MB of 3GB |
> > |
> > extended:
> > /dev/sda4 /usr 6.0GB of 12GB
> > /dev/sda5 /var 1.5GB of 8GB
> > /dev/sda6 /home 15GB of 30GB|
> > free space the rest
> >
> > Of course most seem to go with /boot / and /home, so my ideas are likely
> not
> > grounded in reality ;-)
> >
>
>
> A separate /usr works fine in Fedora, because it is mounted from within the
> initramfs, before we switch to the real root.
>
>
> Quoting:
> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
> ...
> *Going Forward*
> ...
> There is no way to reliably bring up a modern system with an empty /usr.
> There
> are two alternatives to fix it: move /usr back to the rootfs or use an
> initramfs
> which can hide the split-off from the system.
> ...
>
>
> Fedora uses an initramfs to boot and the initramfs explicitly mounts /usr,
> if it
> finds a mount entry in /etc/fstab of the real root.
>
> No fstab.sys and dracut tricks should be needed here. If /usr is not
> mounted
> automatically it's a dracut bug, or you are missing some disk assembly
> kernel
> command line options like rd.luks.uuid=... rd.lvm.lv=.. or rd.md.uuid=...
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130402/c3b3bd6b/attachment-0001.html>