[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: rootfs



On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:53:33AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > Raffaele Morelli wrote:
> > > rootfs                  322M  213M     93M  70% /
> > > /dev/mapper/debian-root  322M  213M     93M  70% /
> > > tmpfs                   368M   11M    339M   3% /tmp
> > > /dev/mapper/debian-tmp   368M   11M    339M   3% /tmp
> > 
> > Note: something odd here: / and /tmp is listed twice!?
> 
> Unfortunately that is the new normal due to the change of /etc/mtab
> from being a file that tracks the mount history to being a symlink
> pointing to /proc/mounts and the kernels current mount state file.  I
> consider this a collateral damage regression in behavior in Wheezy due
> to that change.  It will hopefully get fixed in a future version.

It's basically cosmetic--df needs updating to hide the extra mounts
and/or present the information better.  The main problem is that
the "rootfs" mount has the wrong information since stat reports
the information for the real root, since this is hiding the
initramfs.  I think a patch was already proposed for coreutils,
but I'm not sure if it's fixed upstream yet.  If it has been, it
should be fixed after wheezy is out.

> I haven't seen /tmp listed twice before but it is surely due to
> something related.  Mounted as tmpfs first the initramfs probably and
> then again differently in the fstab.  Perhaps doing a rebuild of the
> initramfs would cache different values.  Or perhaps it is listed in
> the /etc/fstab twice?

It's most likely that the definition in /etc/fstab doesn't match
the one expected by the initscripts (first field not the same),
so that it gets mounted twice.  See fstab(5) for the expected
format.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux    http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   schroot and sbuild  http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
   `-    GPG Public Key      F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800


Reply to: