On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:28:57 -0600 Glenn Holmer <shad...@lyonlabs.org> wrote:
> On 02/28/2016 01:31 PM, mj wrote: > > On 02/28/2016 03:34 PM, Adam Wilson wrote: > >> Let me get this straight- /boot on XFS, with GRUB, working > >> flawlessly? > > > > I think we have been running root xfs, without a seperate boot > > partition for ages. This has been working at least since wheezy, > > but I guess even earlier. > > > > Just try it. > > I have machines with multiple operating systems, and use a "master" > GRUB in its own small partition with the boot code in the MBR, and a > "slave" GRUB embedded in each operating system's boot partition. I > don't know if this is still true (the message is quite old), but it's > why I've always used a separate ext2 /boot partition in that scenario. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-grub@gnu.org/msg10770.html > > "As we all know, you cannot install grub into an XFS partition because > the XFS superblock is in sector 0 of the partition." I'm pretty sure this only holds true for LILO now, according to the official XFS FAQ (http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_Does_GRUB_work_with_XFS.3F). Concerning GRUB, it has this to say: > There is native XFS filesystem support for GRUB starting with version > 0.91 and onward. Unfortunately, GRUB used to make incorrect > assumptions about being able to read a block device image while a > filesystem is mounted and actively being written to, which could > cause intermittent problems when using XFS. This has reportedly since > been fixed, and the 0.97 version (at least) of GRUB is apparently > stable. "apparently stable" wasn't good enough for me- GRUB on XFS support is sketchy at best, so to be on the safe side I just used ext2 for boot. The only downside to this is that I had to forgo a separate /var partition, which is another thing I like to do, using only primary partitions under MBR (as opposed to logical, which I have an irrational dislike for).
