initramfs/udev/mdadm/lvm2 integration

Kees Cook kees at
Fri Sep 14 17:58:10 BST 2007


On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:17:13AM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> Kees Cook wrote:
> > So, the question is, which is the "least surprising"?
> > 
> > a) having the machine spew "I can't mount, here's what you can do...",
> >    potentially endangering SLA and/or convenience.
> > b) mounting degraded, possibly due to poor timing, potentially endangering
> >    partitions and/or data.
> > 
> > I personally think "b" is more surprising.  I don't think it would be
> > hard to add another boot-time flag that means "auto-boot-when-degraded"
> > (which could be mentioned in the spew from "a").
> I find A to be a lot more surprising.  The whole purpose of having a 
> raid 5 setup is so the system will continue to operate just fine in the 
> event of a drive failure.  This includes booting up, which is often when 
> failures occur.  Sure, needlessly degrading the set isn't good, but the 
> system does what it was designed to: keep running.

This is, I think, where we may need to turn to the tech board to get
a decision.  Unless Scott trumps us  ;)

I wonder if specifically asking the question during mdadm install would
be another way to handle this?  Make it a debconf question that affects
the "default" initramfs behavior?

Kees Cook
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : 

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list