[lfs-support] LFS-7.0 with LVM

Baho Utot baho-utot at columbus.rr.com
Sun Jan 29 16:22:09 PST 2012

On Sunday 29 January 2012 07:05:17 pm Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
> > Am I correct in believeing that the root filesystem is mounted from
> > the /etc/rc./init.d/mountfs script?
> No.  It must be mounted in the initramfs or the kernel itself, usually
> readonly.

That is working in the initramfs and it does get mounted rw afterwards

> > If so is it permissable to remove the part that mounts the root
> > filesystem?
> >
> > Does LFS have to have the root file system in fstab?
> I think it does, but I haven't started developing lvm for BLFS yet.
> What I will do though is to get lvm working as a non-rootfs system first
> and then work on initramfs for use as a rootfs.
> As a comment, I don't really think having the root file system on LVM is
> useful.

For me it is ever try to manage 16 regular partitions?
If it wasn't for 2TB hard drives I would agree with you but with the large 
drives lvm is just more better.  You can make a 5G partition and expand or 
contect it at will, to do that with regular partitions is almost impossible 
when you get more than 8 regular partitions and you need to shrink or expand 
the one in the middle.

Since I started using lvm and got past the training part I use lvm on all my 

> The really large systems are in places like /home or other 
> customized places.  A simple 10G (a trivial size for today's drives)
> partition will take all of / with ease.  The larger partitions that may
> need lvm can be mounted as a part of the booting process.
> The only purpose of an initramfs is to mount the rootfs.  Unless you
> need to do a network mount for a diskless system, it is unnecessary.

Yes, it's required for lvm

> All the big distros use an initramfs, but that's because they have a
> 'one size fits all' mentality.  That's why we do LFS in the first place.
> Sorry for the rant.

That's OK, I do that too.

>    -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-support mailing list