[gentoo-server] udev or mdev?

[gentoo-server] udev or mdev?

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 719 bytes --]

Hello Server people!

With the recent brouhaha on udev vs mdev back in the -user list, I just
wondered about whether any server guy/gal here (beside me) actually use
mdev instead of udev for the servers?

So, an informal poll time!

a. I'm using udev and will still be using udev, latest version

b. I'm using udev and will still be using udev, but I'll mask 181 and later
(the versions that require /usr to be present during boot)

c. I'm using udev but will transition to mdev

d. I'm using mdev already.

e. A write in vote (please explain)

I personally choose (d), because I like simpler systems (no initramfs), and
I know *exactly* what's going on during boot if I go the mdev route.

What's your answers?

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 815 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev?

[Kalin KOZHUHAROV]

f. I didn't know mdev existed, will research and answer later :-|

Cheers,
Kalin.

Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev?

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 255 bytes --]

On Mar 19, 2012 8:33 AM, "Kalin KOZHUHAROV" <kalin@thinrope.net> wrote:
>
> f. I didn't know mdev existed, will research and answer later :-|
>
> Cheers,
> Kalin.
>

While researching, make sure to stop by this page:

http://www.waltdnes.org/mdev/

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 437 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev?

[Halassy Zoltán]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 487 bytes --]

> a. I'm using udev and will still be using udev, latest version

This.

Question: Why would I replace a known system to a unknown one? The 
effort required to replace udev with mdev could be used to create an 
initramfs to mount that /usr , or alter the /etc/init.d/udev-mount to 
depend on an extra service, which does nothing else, but mount /usr . 
With the latter, further upgrades would just need to keep the extra 
depend in the init script, long live config-protect.


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME kriptográfiai aláírás --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4426 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev?

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 819 bytes --]

On Mar 19, 2012 5:39 PM, "Halassy Zoltán" <zhalassy@loginet.hu> wrote:
>>
>> a. I'm using udev and will still be using udev, latest version
>
>
> This.
>
> Question: Why would I replace a known system to a unknown one? The effort
required to replace udev with mdev could be used to create an initramfs to
mount that /usr , or alter the /etc/init.d/udev-mount to depend on an extra
service, which does nothing else, but mount /usr . With the latter, further
upgrades would just need to keep the extra depend in the init script, long
live config-protect.
>

IMO, initramfs adds yet another black box during server boot. Plus, udev is
getting more and more complex with all its intelligence. And yet another
daemon in memory, something I certainly don't need on my static virtualized
servers.

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 971 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev?

[Halassy Zoltán]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 492 bytes --]

> IMO, initramfs adds yet another black box during server boot.

The other way around, for me at least. I build my own initramfs, yet I 
don't know anything about mdev, just the fact it's part of busybox. So 
for me, mdev is a black box, while my initramfs definitely isn't.

> And yet
> another daemon in memory, something I certainly don't need on my static
> virtualized servers.

I agree with that. But why do you need mdev for a static system? A few 
mknods would suffice.


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME kriptográfiai aláírás --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4426 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev?

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]

On Mar 21, 2012 4:23 PM, "Halassy Zoltán" <zhalassy@loginet.hu> wrote:
>>
>> IMO, initramfs adds yet another black box during server boot.
>
>
> The other way around, for me at least. I build my own initramfs, yet I
don't know anything about mdev, just the fact it's part of busybox. So for
me, mdev is a black box, while my initramfs definitely isn't.
>
>

I see. Well, different views for different people, I guess.

It's easier for me to bypass mdev (if it's b0rken) than to bypass initramfs.

>> And yet
>> another daemon in memory, something I certainly don't need on my static
>> virtualized servers.
>
>
> I agree with that. But why do you need mdev for a static system? A few
mknods would suffice.
>

It allows triggered action when I (for example) attach a (virtual) hard
disk to my VM.

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1064 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev?

[Daniel Reidy]

people actually need an initramfs?

my kernel has only what it needs, and nothing it doesn't.

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
> On Mar 21, 2012 4:23 PM, "Halassy Zoltán" <zhalassy@loginet.hu> wrote:
>>>
>>> IMO, initramfs adds yet another black box during server boot.
>>
>>
>> The other way around, for me at least. I build my own initramfs, yet I
>> don't know anything about mdev, just the fact it's part of busybox. So for
>> me, mdev is a black box, while my initramfs definitely isn't.
>>
>>
>
> I see. Well, different views for different people, I guess.
>
> It's easier for me to bypass mdev (if it's b0rken) than to bypass initramfs.
>
>>> And yet
>>> another daemon in memory, something I certainly don't need on my static
>>> virtualized servers.
>>
>>
>> I agree with that. But why do you need mdev for a static system? A few
>> mknods would suffice.
>>
>
> It allows triggered action when I (for example) attach a (virtual) hard disk
> to my VM.
>
> Rgds,

Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev?

[Drew]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Daniel Reidy <dubkat@gmail.com> wrote:
> people actually need an initramfs?
>
> my kernel has only what it needs, and nothing it doesn't.

+1

Only time I used initramfs was on a desktop and that was while testing
a quirky lvm/raid setup that wouldn't boot without mdadm doing some
assembly *before* the main root filesystem became available. That was
never production quality though and all my servers run either off a HW
RAID card or boot from a SAN.


-- 
Drew

"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood."
--Marie Curie

"This started out as a hobby and spun horribly out of control."
-Unknown

Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev?

[BRM]

> From: Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info>

>On Mar 21, 2012 4:23 PM, "Halassy Zoltán" <zhalassy@loginet.hu> wrote:
>>> IMO, initramfs adds yet another black box during server boot.
>> The other way around, for me at least. I build my own initramfs, yet I don't know anything about mdev, just the fact it's part of busybox. So for me, mdev is a black box, while my initramfs definitely isn't.
>I see. Well, different views for different people, I guess.
>It's easier for me to bypass mdev (if it's b0rken) than to bypass initramfs.


As I've had to use BusyBox extensively in some environments, I find their tools very lacking in comparison to non-BusyBox environments.
As such, I've come to really hate mdev, and I'll keep udev around for as long as it is the "standard" or until that "standard" changes to something better - of which, mdev it will not be.

$0.02

Ben