[arch-general] Removing initrd (For use with GRUB2, LVM, GPT)

Jonathan Vasquez jvasquez1011 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 01:22:44 EST 2012


On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Jonathan Vasquez
<jvasquez1011 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:36 AM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony at xtfx.me> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Jonathan Vasquez
>> <jvasquez1011 at gmail.com> 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


More information about the arch-general mailing list