3 ms·
I've always liked the /usr distinction, with systems set up so they will at least boot without /usr mounted (at an absolutely minimum, a statically linked /bin/
by zh3 5y ago
I've always liked the /usr distinction, with systems set up so they will at least boot without /usr mounted (at an absolutely minimum, a statically linked /bin/sh is enough to get a command prompt). This is particularly valuable for setups where a large number of PCs can mount /usr read-only from a remote server (we run quite a number of diskless x86 amd ARM systems like this).
- rektide 5y agoBind mount your small system's /usr to /lower, mount your bigger /upper, and use overlayfs to combine them. Looking forward ro some blog posts discussing how to support this use case; it's a good one. I think usr-merge is so much more managable though that it's totally worth doing.
- zh3 5y agoMust admit I'm surprised there don't seem to be more users out there doing exactly this. Makes installing a new program for everyone instant (put it in /usr, now available to all) while allowing personal customisations with the ability to reset the system to a pristine state in a second. Esp. combined with diskless, the computer hardware becomes irrelevant/disposable - just grab a fresh one, boot the same image and carry on (or boot your personal image at a hot desk).
- CameronNemo 5y agoCan you not use an initramfs to support mounting an ro NFS root? You could even ship the initramfs and kernel using tftp. Then the diskless systems just need enough storage for a bootloader like uboot or tianocore.