[gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[walt]

In preparation for the upcoming "upgrade" to gnome3, I've installed
the latest gentoo snapshot to a new virtualbox machine.  (So I can
trash my virtual gentoo machine instead of my real gentoo machine :)

The virtual install went perfectly AFAICT, except for building a new
customized kernel for the gentoo virtualbox machine.

Here's what I did to configure my new customized gentoo kernel:

I booted the gentoo install iso image in virtualbox and did lspci -k
and wrote down all the drivers it displayed.

I also booted my virtualbox ubuntu machine and did lspci -k and again
wrote down all the listed drivers.  (Only one extra driver showed up
in ubuntu and I included it in my list of drivers to-be-installed.)

I configured my new gentoo custom kernel to use all of the drivers I'd
gathered from the steps above, and compiled and installed it without
any problems.

However, when I reboot the virtual gentoo guest machine with my new
customized kernel, the boot hangs forever after discovering devices
and mounting the root partition.ro.

Obviously I've configured my custom kernel incorrectly, but how?

If any of you have virtualbox guest gentoo machines running with a
custom kernel, would you please post your guest .config file for my
edification?

Many thanks!

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Pandu Poluan]

Are you using a recent stage3 tarball? If so, I suspect your booting
problem has got something to do with this bug:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368597

Rgds,


On 2011-05-31, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
> In preparation for the upcoming "upgrade" to gnome3, I've installed
> the latest gentoo snapshot to a new virtualbox machine.  (So I can
> trash my virtual gentoo machine instead of my real gentoo machine :)
>
> The virtual install went perfectly AFAICT, except for building a new
> customized kernel for the gentoo virtualbox machine.
>
> Here's what I did to configure my new customized gentoo kernel:
>
> I booted the gentoo install iso image in virtualbox and did lspci -k
> and wrote down all the drivers it displayed.
>
> I also booted my virtualbox ubuntu machine and did lspci -k and again
> wrote down all the listed drivers.  (Only one extra driver showed up
> in ubuntu and I included it in my list of drivers to-be-installed.)
>
> I configured my new gentoo custom kernel to use all of the drivers I'd
> gathered from the steps above, and compiled and installed it without
> any problems.
>
> However, when I reboot the virtual gentoo guest machine with my new
> customized kernel, the boot hangs forever after discovering devices
> and mounting the root partition.ro.
>
> Obviously I've configured my custom kernel incorrectly, but how?
>
> If any of you have virtualbox guest gentoo machines running with a
> custom kernel, would you please post your guest .config file for my
> edification?
>
> Many thanks!
>
>
>


-- 
--
Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer
My website: http://pandu.poluan.info/

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Pandu Poluan]

Meh, I clicked 'Send' too fast.

*My* suggested solution:

Generate an initramfs containing udev. The hands-down easiest way is
using genkernel's 'only create an initramfs' switch (sorry I forgot
what exactly).

This needs to be done exactly once throughout the life of your VM.

(To the herd of Gentoo graybeards, feel free to CMIIW)

Another alternative would be to mknod all required devices for
booting. But, as evidenced in the bug I've linked to earlier, you
might have to create more than 20 devs. Not a good use of time, if you
ask me. Except if you're one of the guys doing the bug exorcising :)

Oh, and please forgive my top-postings. Gmail's Java mobile client sucks.

Rgds,


On 2011-05-31, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
> In preparation for the upcoming "upgrade" to gnome3, I've installed
> the latest gentoo snapshot to a new virtualbox machine.  (So I can
> trash my virtual gentoo machine instead of my real gentoo machine :)
>
> The virtual install went perfectly AFAICT, except for building a new
> customized kernel for the gentoo virtualbox machine.
>
> Here's what I did to configure my new customized gentoo kernel:
>
> I booted the gentoo install iso image in virtualbox and did lspci -k
> and wrote down all the drivers it displayed.
>
> I also booted my virtualbox ubuntu machine and did lspci -k and again
> wrote down all the listed drivers.  (Only one extra driver showed up
> in ubuntu and I included it in my list of drivers to-be-installed.)
>
> I configured my new gentoo custom kernel to use all of the drivers I'd
> gathered from the steps above, and compiled and installed it without
> any problems.
>
> However, when I reboot the virtual gentoo guest machine with my new
> customized kernel, the boot hangs forever after discovering devices
> and mounting the root partition.ro.
>
> Obviously I've configured my custom kernel incorrectly, but how?
>
> If any of you have virtualbox guest gentoo machines running with a
> custom kernel, would you please post your guest .config file for my
> edification?
>
> Many thanks!
>
>
>


-- 
--
Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer
My website: http://pandu.poluan.info/

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 376 bytes --]

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 5:45 PM, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> If any of you have virtualbox guest gentoo machines running with a
> custom kernel, would you please post your guest .config file for my
> edification?
>
> Many thanks!

I am running Gentoo in Virtualbox on my Gentoo compute server. The
kernel config attached is for 2.6.38-r3.

Hope this helps,
Mark

[-- Attachment #2: 2.6.38-r3.config.tar --]
[-- Type: application/x-tar, Size: 71680 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> Meh, I clicked 'Send' too fast.
>
> *My* suggested solution:
>
> Generate an initramfs containing udev. The hands-down easiest way is
> using genkernel's 'only create an initramfs' switch (sorry I forgot
> what exactly).

good god no, please, anything but genkernel.

That thing is an attempt to emulate binary distros which require an
initramfs to work properly (for any sane definition of "work") as the
person building the installer has no idea what hardware the user will
have. In Gentoo the user knows exactly what they have so there's no
need for a gigantic hardware-detecting workaround at boot time.

> This needs to be done exactly once throughout the life of your VM.
>
> (To the herd of Gentoo graybeards, feel free to CMIIW)

Or wait a few days for vapier's (posting under his other name of
spanky) sane advice to be implemented. His proposal is the sole voice
of reason in that bug thread....


>
> Another alternative would be to mknod all required devices for
> booting. But, as evidenced in the bug I've linked to earlier, you
> might have to create more than 20 devs. Not a good use of time, if you
> ask me. Except if you're one of the guys doing the bug exorcising :)
>
> Oh, and please forgive my top-postings. Gmail's Java mobile client sucks.
>
> Rgds,
>
>
> On 2011-05-31, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In preparation for the upcoming "upgrade" to gnome3, I've installed
>> the latest gentoo snapshot to a new virtualbox machine.  (So I can
>> trash my virtual gentoo machine instead of my real gentoo machine :)
>>
>> The virtual install went perfectly AFAICT, except for building a new
>> customized kernel for the gentoo virtualbox machine.
>>
>> Here's what I did to configure my new customized gentoo kernel:
>>
>> I booted the gentoo install iso image in virtualbox and did lspci -k
>> and wrote down all the drivers it displayed.
>>
>> I also booted my virtualbox ubuntu machine and did lspci -k and again
>> wrote down all the listed drivers.  (Only one extra driver showed up
>> in ubuntu and I included it in my list of drivers to-be-installed.)
>>
>> I configured my new gentoo custom kernel to use all of the drivers I'd
>> gathered from the steps above, and compiled and installed it without
>> any problems.
>>
>> However, when I reboot the virtual gentoo guest machine with my new
>> customized kernel, the boot hangs forever after discovering devices
>> and mounting the root partition.ro.
>>
>> Obviously I've configured my custom kernel incorrectly, but how?
>>
>> If any of you have virtualbox guest gentoo machines running with a
>> custom kernel, would you please post your guest .config file for my
>> edification?
>>
>> Many thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer
> My website: http://pandu.poluan.info/
>
>



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Pandu Poluan]

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 13:56, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>> Meh, I clicked 'Send' too fast.
>>
>> *My* suggested solution:
>>
>> Generate an initramfs containing udev. The hands-down easiest way is
>> using genkernel's 'only create an initramfs' switch (sorry I forgot
>> what exactly).
>
> good god no, please, anything but genkernel.
>
> That thing is an attempt to emulate binary distros which require an
> initramfs to work properly (for any sane definition of "work") as the
> person building the installer has no idea what hardware the user will
> have. In Gentoo the user knows exactly what they have so there's no
> need for a gigantic hardware-detecting workaround at boot time.
>
>> This needs to be done exactly once throughout the life of your VM.
>>
>> (To the herd of Gentoo graybeards, feel free to CMIIW)
>
> Or wait a few days for vapier's (posting under his other name of
> spanky) sane advice to be implemented. His proposal is the sole voice
> of reason in that bug thread....
>

True. But I was having problem installing 2 servers on top of XenServer.

So I cheated and ran 'genkernel initramfs' exactly once. At least I
got myself a booting system. :-)

When SpanKY's makedev gets stabilized and pushed to baselayout, I'll
then happily ditch the genkernel cheat for my next VMs :-)

Rgds,
-- 
Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~
Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com

[gentoo-user] Re: Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[walt]

On 05/30/2011 06:03 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> Are you using a recent stage3 tarball? If so, I suspect your booting
> problem has got something to do with this bug:
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368597

That was it, thanks!  Nothing to do with the kernel after all.
I created /dev/console and added udev to the sysinit level and now
it boots right up :)
 


> On 2011-05-31, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> However, when I reboot the virtual gentoo guest machine with my new
>> customized kernel, the boot hangs forever after discovering devices
>> and mounting the root partition.ro.

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1756 bytes --]

On Tuesday 31 May 2011 08:07:24 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 13:56, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> >> Meh, I clicked 'Send' too fast.
> >> 
> >> *My* suggested solution:
> >> 
> >> Generate an initramfs containing udev. The hands-down easiest way is
> >> using genkernel's 'only create an initramfs' switch (sorry I forgot
> >> what exactly).
> > 
> > good god no, please, anything but genkernel.
> > 
> > That thing is an attempt to emulate binary distros which require an
> > initramfs to work properly (for any sane definition of "work") as the
> > person building the installer has no idea what hardware the user will
> > have. In Gentoo the user knows exactly what they have so there's no
> > need for a gigantic hardware-detecting workaround at boot time.
> > 
> >> This needs to be done exactly once throughout the life of your VM.
> >> 
> >> (To the herd of Gentoo graybeards, feel free to CMIIW)
> > 
> > Or wait a few days for vapier's (posting under his other name of
> > spanky) sane advice to be implemented. His proposal is the sole voice
> > of reason in that bug thread....
> 
> True. But I was having problem installing 2 servers on top of XenServer.
> 
> So I cheated and ran 'genkernel initramfs' exactly once. At least I
> got myself a booting system. :-)
> 
> When SpanKY's makedev gets stabilized and pushed to baselayout, I'll
> then happily ditch the genkernel cheat for my next VMs :-)

Are you sure that manually creating /dev/console and /dev/null isn't all that 
is required?  The rest of the devices will be created by udev when it runs at 
boot time.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 21:27 on Tuesday 31 May 2011, Mick did opine 
thusly:

> On Tuesday 31 May 2011 08:07:24 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 13:56, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
> 
> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> > >> Meh, I clicked 'Send' too fast.
> > >> 
> > >> *My* suggested solution:
> > >> 
> > >> Generate an initramfs containing udev. The hands-down easiest way is
> > >> using genkernel's 'only create an initramfs' switch (sorry I forgot
> > >> what exactly).
> > > 
> > > good god no, please, anything but genkernel.
> > > 
> > > That thing is an attempt to emulate binary distros which require an
> > > initramfs to work properly (for any sane definition of "work") as the
> > > person building the installer has no idea what hardware the user will
> > > have. In Gentoo the user knows exactly what they have so there's no
> > > need for a gigantic hardware-detecting workaround at boot time.
> > > 
> > >> This needs to be done exactly once throughout the life of your VM.
> > >> 
> > >> (To the herd of Gentoo graybeards, feel free to CMIIW)
> > > 
> > > Or wait a few days for vapier's (posting under his other name of
> > > spanky) sane advice to be implemented. His proposal is the sole voice
> > > of reason in that bug thread....
> > 
> > True. But I was having problem installing 2 servers on top of XenServer.
> > 
> > So I cheated and ran 'genkernel initramfs' exactly once. At least I
> > got myself a booting system. :-)
> > 
> > When SpanKY's makedev gets stabilized and pushed to baselayout, I'll
> > then happily ditch the genkernel cheat for my next VMs :-)
> 
> Are you sure that manually creating /dev/console and /dev/null isn't all
> that is required?  The rest of the devices will be created by udev when it
> runs at boot time.

null and console are the absolute irreducible minimum but there's one that can 
be dispensed with if the correct kernel option is enabled.

We don't need everything that makedev traditionally provided (like every block 
device type known to man, floppys and ancient ptys) but the rest number about 
~250 and are useful in single-user mode if udev fails to start.

Considering that ~250 devices consumes a teeny-weeny bit of disk space and 
they are hidden from view normally, I say it's worth it leaving them in. Which 
is what vapier also says.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> Considering that ~250 devices consumes a teeny-weeny bit of disk space and
> they are hidden from view normally, I say it's worth it leaving them in. Which
> is what vapier also says.
>
>    

+1  They are tiny plus when devfs mounts, they aren't visible anymore if 
I recall correctly.  Doesn't devfs mount on top of them?

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 22:12 on Tuesday 31 May 2011, Dale did opine 
thusly:

> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Considering that ~250 devices consumes a teeny-weeny bit of disk space
> > and they are hidden from view normally, I say it's worth it leaving them
> > in. Which is what vapier also says.
> 
> +1  They are tiny plus when devfs mounts, they aren't visible anymore if
> I recall correctly.  Doesn't devfs mount on top of them?

Well that's what "hidden from view normally" evaluates to.

But it's not devfs - that was an abomination that should never have been 
suffered to live. It's mere existence offended GregKH so much that he whipped 
up the beginnings of udev so that he might never see devfs ever again

It's "udev" and is normally mounted on a tmpfs

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2909 bytes --]

On Tuesday 31 May 2011 21:02:46 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 21:27 on Tuesday 31 May 2011, Mick did
> opine
> 
> thusly:
> > On Tuesday 31 May 2011 08:07:24 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 13:56, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> 
wrote:
> > > >> Meh, I clicked 'Send' too fast.
> > > >> 
> > > >> *My* suggested solution:
> > > >> 
> > > >> Generate an initramfs containing udev. The hands-down easiest way is
> > > >> using genkernel's 'only create an initramfs' switch (sorry I forgot
> > > >> what exactly).
> > > > 
> > > > good god no, please, anything but genkernel.
> > > > 
> > > > That thing is an attempt to emulate binary distros which require an
> > > > initramfs to work properly (for any sane definition of "work") as the
> > > > person building the installer has no idea what hardware the user will
> > > > have. In Gentoo the user knows exactly what they have so there's no
> > > > need for a gigantic hardware-detecting workaround at boot time.
> > > > 
> > > >> This needs to be done exactly once throughout the life of your VM.
> > > >> 
> > > >> (To the herd of Gentoo graybeards, feel free to CMIIW)
> > > > 
> > > > Or wait a few days for vapier's (posting under his other name of
> > > > spanky) sane advice to be implemented. His proposal is the sole voice
> > > > of reason in that bug thread....
> > > 
> > > True. But I was having problem installing 2 servers on top of
> > > XenServer.
> > > 
> > > So I cheated and ran 'genkernel initramfs' exactly once. At least I
> > > got myself a booting system. :-)
> > > 
> > > When SpanKY's makedev gets stabilized and pushed to baselayout, I'll
> > > then happily ditch the genkernel cheat for my next VMs :-)
> > 
> > Are you sure that manually creating /dev/console and /dev/null isn't all
> > that is required?  The rest of the devices will be created by udev when
> > it runs at boot time.
> 
> null and console are the absolute irreducible minimum but there's one that
> can be dispensed with if the correct kernel option is enabled.
> 
> We don't need everything that makedev traditionally provided (like every
> block device type known to man, floppys and ancient ptys) but the rest
> number about ~250 and are useful in single-user mode if udev fails to
> start.
> 
> Considering that ~250 devices consumes a teeny-weeny bit of disk space and
> they are hidden from view normally, I say it's worth it leaving them in.
> Which is what vapier also says.

I see.  In my head it is as if we're going against the udev principle of 
populating required device nodes.  If udev does not start, isn't it time to 
head for the nearest LiveCD, or must we ensure that every breakage is fixable 
in single-user mode?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:12 on Tuesday 31 May 2011, Dale did opine
> thusly:
>
>    
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>      
>>> Considering that ~250 devices consumes a teeny-weeny bit of disk space
>>> and they are hidden from view normally, I say it's worth it leaving them
>>> in. Which is what vapier also says.
>>>        
>> +1  They are tiny plus when devfs mounts, they aren't visible anymore if
>> I recall correctly.  Doesn't devfs mount on top of them?
>>      
> Well that's what "hidden from view normally" evaluates to.
>
> But it's not devfs - that was an abomination that should never have been
> suffered to live. It's mere existence offended GregKH so much that he whipped
> up the beginnings of udev so that he might never see devfs ever again
>
> It's "udev" and is normally mounted on a tmpfs
>
>    

Correct.  I was thinking about the old way.  Still mounted on top of and 
hidden as you say.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Pandu Poluan]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 03:35, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 May 2011 21:02:46 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> Apparently, though unproven, at 21:27 on Tuesday 31 May 2011, Mick did
>> opine
>>
>> thusly:
>> > On Tuesday 31 May 2011 08:07:24 Pandu Poluan wrote:
>> > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 13:56, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>

----- 8< ----- massive snippage ----- >8 -----

>> > > When SpanKY's makedev gets stabilized and pushed to baselayout, I'll
>> > > then happily ditch the genkernel cheat for my next VMs :-)
>> >
>> > Are you sure that manually creating /dev/console and /dev/null isn't all
>> > that is required?  The rest of the devices will be created by udev when
>> > it runs at boot time.
>>

Most probably so. But at that point, I was pressed for time. Had the
system need only /dev/{console,null} then all will be well. If not?
Then another cycle of LiveCD-mount-mknod-restart.

Much faster to just `genkernel initramfs` while waiting for the snafus
to be fixed

(Well, that, and I'm lazy)

>> null and console are the absolute irreducible minimum but there's one that
>> can be dispensed with if the correct kernel option is enabled.
>>
>> We don't need everything that makedev traditionally provided (like every
>> block device type known to man, floppys and ancient ptys) but the rest
>> number about ~250 and are useful in single-user mode if udev fails to
>> start.
>>
>> Considering that ~250 devices consumes a teeny-weeny bit of disk space and
>> they are hidden from view normally, I say it's worth it leaving them in.
>> Which is what vapier also says.

Agree.

> I see.  In my head it is as if we're going against the udev principle of
> populating required device nodes.  If udev does not start, isn't it time to
> head for the nearest LiveCD, or must we ensure that every breakage is fixable
> in single-user mode?

There are cases for each, but I personally prefer going single-user.
Especially when working on virtualized servers.

Rgds,
-- 
Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~
Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Wednesday 01 June 2011 11:52:25 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 03:35, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 May 2011 21:02:46 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I see.  In my head it is as if we're going against the udev principle of
> > populating required device nodes.  If udev does not start, isn't it time
> > to head for the nearest LiveCD, or must we ensure that every breakage
> > is fixable in single-user mode?
> 
> There are cases for each, but I personally prefer going single-user.
> Especially when working on virtualized servers.

+1
Even though with virtualized servers, using Xen, it's possible to access the 
filesystem easily from the host.

I do prefer to have the option for a single-usermode to fix things as I tend to 
disconnect CD-drives in servers to keep the CD-drives from killing themselves 
by being powered non-stop.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Tuesday 31 May 2011, Mick did opine 
thusly:

> > Considering that ~250 devices consumes a teeny-weeny bit of disk space
> > and they are hidden from view normally, I say it's worth it leaving them
> > in. Which is what vapier also says.
> 
> I see.  In my head it is as if we're going against the udev principle of 
> populating required device nodes.  If udev does not start, isn't it time
> to  head for the nearest LiveCD, or must we ensure that every breakage is
> fixable in single-user mode?

I don't think we have to go that far. I think we should at least take 
reasonable steps to ensure the single-user mode works at all.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone running a gentoo guest on virtualbox?

[Pandu Poluan]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 15:10, Joost Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2011 11:52:25 Pandu Poluan wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 03:35, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 31 May 2011 21:02:46 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> > I see.  In my head it is as if we're going against the udev principle of
>> > populating required device nodes.  If udev does not start, isn't it time
>> > to head for the nearest LiveCD, or must we ensure that every breakage
>> > is fixable in single-user mode?
>>
>> There are cases for each, but I personally prefer going single-user.
>> Especially when working on virtualized servers.
>
> +1
> Even though with virtualized servers, using Xen, it's possible to access the
> filesystem easily from the host.
>

Well, in my case, the servers ran as VMs on top of VMware in my Cloud
Provider's infrastructure...

No consoling into the hypervisor, understandably. And even worse:
Can't attach the virtual hard disk to another live VM.

Either I have to boot with a LiveCD, or go into single-user. The
former took quite some time to boot, so I really prefer the latter.

Rgds,
-- 
Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~
Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com