initramfs/udev/mdadm/lvm2 integration

Scott James Remnant scott at
Thu Sep 13 12:20:38 BST 2007

On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 16:16 -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:

> Kees Cook wrote:
> > In Gutsy, the udev rules work for systems that have been set up
> > correctly using UUIDs[1] in their /etc/fstab.  If there are
> > (non-degraded) situations where LVM-on-MD does _not_ boot, it should be
> > considered a bug, and a new report should be opened.
> LVM-on-MD works, but is a hack.  LVM on dmraid does not work ( see bug 
> #129285 ).  The discussion for the proper fix is at:
LVM-on-MD is not a "hack", what part of it do you consider to be hacky?

Err, what's LVM-on-dmraid?  The reason that doesn't work is because I've
never heard of it.

> The LVM and dmraid tools are fundamentally broken as designed with 
> respect to udev and need fixed to support being told what devices to 
> muck with by udev instead of scanning for things that look proper 
> devices in /dev.
Yes, that's true; is this what you mean by "a hack" ?

> > I like the idea of local-timeout, though I'm still generally against
> > automatically bring up the degraded arrays -- however, a detailed report
> > that tries to figure out what's wrong and spews help to the console would
> > be nice, something like:
> Having an option would be nice, but for unattended servers, they need to 
>   not require attention if possible, so eventually it should give up 
> waiting and activate the set degraded.
The difficulty is, the bigger and more complex the server, the longer
you can normally expect to wait.  There are complaints that the three
minute timeout isn't enough for people's disk arrays on a cold morning.

Scott James Remnant
scott at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list