On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Baho Utot <baho-u...@columbus.rr.com> wrote: > On 08/14/2012 08:53 PM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Tom Gundersen <t...@jklm.no> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 AM, David Benfell >>> <benf...@parts-unknown.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Does systemd not use the standard >>>> mount program and follow /etc/fstab? >>> >>> It does. Though it does not use "mount -a", but rather mounts each fs >>> separately. >> >> > > [putolin] > > I came across another anomaly on my systemd boxes that I would like someone > to verify if they could. Please do this on a backup system. > > I was changing some lvm partitions about that were mounted in /etc/fstab, > actually I removed them and created two new lvm partitions with different > names, but failed to update the fstab. Upon rebooting the systems failed to > boot and where stuck at trying to mount the non existing lvm partitions. I > could not fix the systems as I could not get a "recovery" bash prompt. I > had to use a boot live CD to edit the fstab and then all was well. On all my > sysvinit systems a bad mount point would just give me an error and continue > booting. > > Could some brave enterprising soul confirm this? > > This created the following question: Can systemd boot a system without a > fstab?
you would have to provide the mountpoints -- depending on what you were mounting i'm quite sure initscripts would fail (/usr? /var? what was changed??), though they may very well just keep chugging on, pretending all is well. root mount depends on nothing more than what's listed on the kernel cmdline in grub.cfg or equivalent. you could have also added `break=y` (legacy form, i forget the new syntax) to open a shell in the initramfs and correct from there. AFAIK systemd doesn't NEED an fstab, but you would then need to provide native *.mount files instead ... SOMETHING has to tell it where the mounts go, yes? -- C Anthony
