[gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[pat]

Hi,

I have question about ramfs and if it is necessary. I have notebook with SATA
drive. I generate kernel with genkernel and it generates initramfs file too. My
question is if this is realy necessary and if not, what I have to do. And if it
is necessary where I can find good documentation (samples, explanation, etc.).

And next question is: hat is difference between ramfs and initrd ??? Is it the
same thing or not ... ???

Thanks a lot.

	Pat
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1679 bytes --]

On Wednesday 21 February 2007, pat <pat@xvalheru.org> wrote 
about '[gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???':
> And if it is necessary where I can find good documentation
> (samples, explanation, etc.).

Pretty much all of the documenation on "early userspace" is in the kernel 
tree.  You might even want to emerge the kernel with the 'doc' use flag, 
to get full (HTML?) documentation, although some of it is in simple plain 
text (rather than docbook) and available w/o that flag.

> And next question is: hat is difference between ramfs and initrd ??? Is
> it the same thing or not ... ???

initrd is the old way.  A compressed (usually ext2) filesystem used to load 
kernel modules, or otherwise initialize things before mounting the root 
filesystem.

initramfs is the new way.  A compressed series of cpio archives (with some 
special treatment) for the same purpose.

Both use ram-backed block devices.  initrd doesn't need ramfs or tmpfs.  I 
think an initramfs can use either, but it might require ramfs.  An 
initramfs can be compiled into the kernel, either can be a separate file 
loaded by grub/lilo/xen.

ramfs is a fixed-size ram-backed file system.  tmpfs is a newer, better way 
to do this.  It has a maximum size (which can be changed by a remount) but 
will only allocate enough ram to hold what is currently placed on the 
filesystem.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     
New GPG Key!  Old key expires 2007-03-25.  Upgrade NOW!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[pat]

OK, so I have to search for ramfs. What tool is used to create initramsf file
for boot or how to compile it into kernel and how to use it with grub ???

Yes, start with kernel documentation ... but something quicker ??? :-)

Thanks a lot for your help.

     Pat

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:16:35 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote
> On Wednesday 21 February 2007, pat <pat@xvalheru.org> wrote 
> about '[gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???':
> > And if it is necessary where I can find good documentation
> > (samples, explanation, etc.).
> 
> Pretty much all of the documenation on "early userspace" is in the 
> kernel tree.  You might even want to emerge the kernel with the 
> 'doc' use flag, to get full (HTML?) documentation, although some of 
> it is in simple plain text (rather than docbook) and available w/o 
> that flag.
> 
> > And next question is: hat is difference between ramfs and initrd ??? Is
> > it the same thing or not ... ???
> 
> initrd is the old way.  A compressed (usually ext2) filesystem used 
> to load kernel modules, or otherwise initialize things before 
> mounting the root filesystem.
> 
> initramfs is the new way.  A compressed series of cpio archives 
> (with some special treatment) for the same purpose.
> 
> Both use ram-backed block devices.  initrd doesn't need ramfs or 
> tmpfs.  I think an initramfs can use either, but it might require 
> ramfs.  An initramfs can be compiled into the kernel, either can be 
> a separate file loaded by grub/lilo/xen.
> 
> ramfs is a fixed-size ram-backed file system.  tmpfs is a newer, 
> better way to do this.  It has a maximum size (which can be changed 
> by a remount) but will only allocate enough ram to hold what is 
> currently placed on the filesystem.
> 
> -- 
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
> bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
> ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
> http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     
> New GPG Key!  Old key expires 2007-03-25.  Upgrade NOW!

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Mittwoch, 21. Februar 2007, pat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have question about ramfs and if it is necessary. I have notebook with
> SATA drive. I generate kernel with genkernel and it generates initramfs
> file too. My question is if this is realy necessary and if not, what I have
> to do. And if it is necessary where I can find good documentation (samples,
> explanation, etc.).
>
> And next question is: hat is difference between ramfs and initrd ??? Is it
> the same thing or not ... ???
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> 	Pat

you don't need initrd. You don't need initramfs. You don't need to use 
genkernel (IMHO genkernel is evil). And you don't need ramfs.

initrd/initramfs is mostly for distributions who want to compile everything as 
module, people with strange settings (like some kind of raid), or people too 
stupid to build their own kernel. If you build your kernel and build 
everything you need to boot into it, you can live without that crap.

-- 
Conclusions 
 In a straight-up fight, the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Even 
with its numerical advantage removed, the Empire would still squash the 
Federation like a bug. Accept it. -Michael Wong 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1075 bytes --]

On Wednesday 21 February 2007, "pat" <pat@xvalheru.org> wrote about 'Re: 
[gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???':
> OK, so I have to search for ramfs. What tool is used to create initramsf
> file for boot or how to compile it into kernel and how to use it with
> grub ???

Each distro has their own, although I think they were mostly spawned from 
mkinitrd from RedHat.  I believe genkernel now creates initramfs (as 
opposed to initrd) files, and may have support for compiling the initramfs 
into the kernel.

grub/lilo/xen loads an initramfs exactly the same as an initrd -- the 
kernel determines how to use the uncompressed data by looking for a cpio 
header.

> Yes, start with kernel documentation ... but something quicker ??? :-)

Not that I've found.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     
New GPG Key!  Old key expires 2007-03-25.  Upgrade NOW!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1407 bytes --]

On Wednesday 21 February 2007, "Hemmann, Volker Armin" 
<volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] 
ramfs - is it necessary ???':
> On Mittwoch, 21. Februar 2007, pat wrote:
> > My question is if this is realy necessary and if
> > not, what I have to do. And if it is necessary where I can find good
> > documentation (samples, explanation, etc.).
>
> you don't need initrd. You don't need initramfs. You don't need to use
> genkernel (IMHO genkernel is evil). And you don't need ramfs.

That's my experience with genkernel as well.

> initrd/initramfs is mostly for distributions who want to compile
> everything as module, people with strange settings (like some kind of
> raid), or people too stupid to build their own kernel. If you build your
> kernel and build everything you need to boot into it, you can live
> without that crap.

I need it because my '/' in on an LVM device which does require some 
userland tools to setup.  initrd/ramfs really isn't "crap", but they are 
generally unnecessary (unless you have '/' on EVMS/LVM/software-RAID) on 
Gentoo.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     
New GPG Key!  Old key expires 2007-03-25.  Upgrade NOW!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[pat]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:13:56 +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote
> On Mittwoch, 21. Februar 2007, pat wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have question about ramfs and if it is necessary. I have notebook with
> > SATA drive. I generate kernel with genkernel and it generates initramfs
> > file too. My question is if this is realy necessary and if not, what I have
> > to do. And if it is necessary where I can find good documentation (samples,
> > explanation, etc.).
> >
> > And next question is: hat is difference between ramfs and initrd ??? Is it
> > the same thing or not ... ???
> >
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
> > 	Pat
> 
> you don't need initrd. You don't need initramfs. You don't need to 
> use genkernel (IMHO genkernel is evil). And you don't need ramfs.
> 
> initrd/initramfs is mostly for distributions who want to compile 
> everything as module, people with strange settings (like some kind 
> of raid), or people too stupid to build their own kernel. If you 
> build your kernel and build everything you need to boot into it, you 
> can live without that crap.
> 

... so the initramfs is not necessary for the SATA drive when it is not a
module ??? Because I think I need it because of the SATA drive.

Thanks

     Pat

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[pat]

OK, thanks.

     Pat

P.S. Question is what should be part of the initramfs :-|

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:25:36 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote
> On Wednesday 21 February 2007, "pat" <pat@xvalheru.org> wrote about 
> 'Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???':
> > OK, so I have to search for ramfs. What tool is used to create initramsf
> > file for boot or how to compile it into kernel and how to use it with
> > grub ???
> 
> Each distro has their own, although I think they were mostly spawned 
> from mkinitrd from RedHat.  I believe genkernel now creates 
> initramfs (as opposed to initrd) files, and may have support for 
> compiling the initramfs into the kernel.
> 
> grub/lilo/xen loads an initramfs exactly the same as an initrd --
>  the kernel determines how to use the uncompressed data by looking 
> for a cpio header.
> 
> > Yes, start with kernel documentation ... but something quicker ??? :-)
> 
> Not that I've found.
> 
> -- 
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
> bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
> ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
> http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     
> New GPG Key!  Old key expires 2007-03-25.  Upgrade NOW!

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007, pat wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:13:56 +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote
>
> > On Mittwoch, 21. Februar 2007, pat wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have question about ramfs and if it is necessary. I have notebook
> > > with SATA drive. I generate kernel with genkernel and it generates
> > > initramfs file too. My question is if this is realy necessary and if
> > > not, what I have to do. And if it is necessary where I can find good
> > > documentation (samples, explanation, etc.).
> > >
> > > And next question is: hat is difference between ramfs and initrd ??? Is
> > > it the same thing or not ... ???
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > > 	Pat
> >
> > you don't need initrd. You don't need initramfs. You don't need to
> > use genkernel (IMHO genkernel is evil). And you don't need ramfs.
> >
> > initrd/initramfs is mostly for distributions who want to compile
> > everything as module, people with strange settings (like some kind
> > of raid), or people too stupid to build their own kernel. If you
> > build your kernel and build everything you need to boot into it, you
> > can live without that crap.
>
> ... so the initramfs is not necessary for the SATA drive when it is not a
> module ??? Because I think I need it because of the SATA drive.
>

if you compile sata support into the kernel, you don't need the initramfs 
stuff.
I have a sata drive too. / and /home are on it. And I boot every day from it, 
without using a initrd or similar stuff.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 22 February 2007, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 February 2007, "pat" <pat@xvalheru.org> wrote about
> 'Re:
>
> [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???':

First, I think the OP is confused between ramfs and initramfs.Not quite 
the same thing...

But the thread has become about initramfs so we'll stick with that

> > OK, so I have to search for ramfs. What tool is used to create
> > initramsf file for boot or how to compile it into kernel and how to
> > use it with grub ???
>
> Each distro has their own, although I think they were mostly spawned
> from mkinitrd from RedHat.  I believe genkernel now creates initramfs
> (as opposed to initrd) files, and may have support for compiling the
> initramfs into the kernel.

genkernel will create an initramfs if you ask it to. The 'all' 
and 'initrd' arguments build the initramfs, as in

genkernel all
genkernel initrd

Yes, the initrd argument does indeed build an initramfs and not an 
initrd....

And the OP should keep in mind that the initrd format was dumped many 
many kernel versions ago and these days we use initramfs, 

> grub/lilo/xen loads an initramfs exactly the same as an initrd -- the
> kernel determines how to use the uncompressed data by looking for a
> cpio header.
>
> > Yes, start with kernel documentation ... but something quicker ???
> > :-)
>
> Not that I've found.

True. The only sane docs around I've ever found about this is 
Documentation/earlyuserspace.txt - it's a tough read, but it's all 
there

alan

-- 
Optimists say the glass is half full,
Pessimists say the glass is half empty,
Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be?

Alan McKinnon
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 22 February 2007, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> initrd/initramfs is mostly for distributions who want to compile
> everything as module, people with strange settings (like some kind of
> raid), or people too stupid to build their own kernel. If you build
> your kernel and build everything you need to boot into it, you can
> live without that crap.

In all fairness, an initramfs and a fully modular kernel is the only 
realistic way to build a binary distro CDs for redistribution. Or the 
Gentoo LiveCDs for that matter. We *could* use the slackware approach 
and supply 10 basic kernels and ask you to choose the most appropriate 
one, but that never really caught on :-)

But you are mostly right, around here in Gentoo-land it's become almost 
a guerilla rite of passage to be able to drop genkernel and roll your 
own (raid users excepted of course)

alan


-- 
Optimists say the glass is half full,
Pessimists say the glass is half empty,
Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be?

Alan McKinnon
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:50:22 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> But you are mostly right, around here in Gentoo-land it's become almost 
> a guerilla rite of passage to be able to drop genkernel and roll your 
> own (raid users excepted of course)

Why? RAID support is as simple as selecting a couple of options in
menuconfig. Or were you thinking of LVM? That needs an initr* to use it
on /.

Dropping genkernel is almost always a good thing. If you roll your own
kernel, you will have a better understanding of what's going on and what
you need.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I wouldn't be caught dead with a necrophiliac.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[pat]

Thanks to all. Now it cleaner to me :-)

Only (probably) last question: If I want to play with the Xen I can compile
SATA support directly to kernel and it will be still OK ???

Once again thanks a lot.

     Pat

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:08:31 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> On Thursday 22 February 2007, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:50:22 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > But you are mostly right, around here in Gentoo-land it's become
> > > almost a guerilla rite of passage to be able to drop genkernel and
> > > roll your own (raid users excepted of course)
> >
> > Why? RAID support is as simple as selecting a couple of options in
> > menuconfig. Or were you thinking of LVM? That needs an initr* to use
> > it on /.
> 
> hardware raid or software raid? A decent controller will just do 
> raid and give you a b lock device to boot from. What about those 
> stupid el-cheapo so-called raid controllers that are actually little 
> more than bus adapters with four drives attached and you do the real 
> raid in software? That will need an initr*
> 
> > Dropping genkernel is almost always a good thing. If you roll your
> > own kernel, you will have a better understanding of what's going on
> > and what you need.
> 
> Yes, very true. But genkernel is a useful interim measure to help 
> get our users from using a binary blob kernel to successfully 
> rolling their own.
> 
> alan
> 
> -- 
> Optimists say the glass is half full,
> Pessimists say the glass is half empty,
> Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be?
> 
> Alan McKinnon
> alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
> +27 82, double three seven, one nine three five
> -- 
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1054 bytes --]

On Wednesday 21 February 2007 18:41, pat wrote:
> P.S. Question is what should be part of the initramfs :-|

Any modules or userland utilities needed to mount your '/' filesystem, plus 
all the libraries and other utilities they depend on, plus a linuxrc or 
init 
script that will actually do the preparation, mount the filesystem, 
chroot/pivot_root/switch_root, and exec() the real /sbin/init binary.

Actually, you can put *anything* you want to in the initramfs... embeded 
linux 
might never leave the initramfs.

PS:
A: It reverses the reading order of the conversation.
Q: Why's top-posting so bad?
A: Top-posting and insufficient quote trimming.
Q: What's the most annoying thing on mailing lists and USENET?

Please don't top-post.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     
New GPG Key!  Old key expires 2007-03-25.  Upgrade NOW!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1264 bytes --]

On Wednesday 21 February 2007 18:39, pat wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:13:56 +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote
> > initrd/initramfs is mostly for distributions who want to compile
> > everything as module, people with strange settings (like some kind
> > of raid), or people too stupid to build their own kernel.
>
> ... so the initramfs is not necessary for the SATA drive when it is not a
> module ??? Because I think I need it because of the SATA drive.

You really didn't need those extra two question marks.

Anyway, if you'll compile the driver for your SATA controller (that runs 
the 
drive that holds '/') into the kernel and you don't have an exotic setup 
(software RAID/LVM/EVMS), you won't need an initrd/initramfs.  Depending on 
how your software RAID is set up you may not need a initrd/initramfs for 
that 
either.  (Linux won't autostart my software RAID because I raid together 
two 
whole drives instead of multiple partitions.)

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     
New GPG Key!  Old key expires 2007-03-25.  Upgrade NOW!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1849 bytes --]

On Thursday 22 February 2007 01:45, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thursday 22 February 2007, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > On Wednesday 21 February 2007, "pat" <pat@xvalheru.org> wrote about
> > 'Re:
> >
> > [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???':
>
> First, I think the OP is confused between ramfs and initramfs.Not quite
> the same thing...

Yeah, I hoped I cleared that up with my first reply.

> But the thread has become about initramfs so we'll stick with that

I think this is more what the OP was concerned about.

> And the OP should keep in mind that the initrd format was dumped many
> many kernel versions ago and these days we use initramfs,

I am fairly certain I was still using my custom initrd (not an initramfs) 
until 2.6.17 -- I'm fairly sure 2.6.20 still *supports* initrd format, even 
if initramfs is preferred now.

For the life of me, I always found it easier to get an initrd working 
rather 
than an initramfs -- the whole chroot/exec vs. pivot_root vs. switch_root 
step always failed for me when using an initramfs (and the very same shell 
script worked as an initrd).  Also, a script-made initrd is still just a 
compressed filesystem, easy to deal with, but a script-made initramfs 
(particularly one made by genkernel) is not just a cpio archive, it's a 
series of them separated by some !!!!KERNEL_MAGIC!!!! strings in the middle 
of binary data -- nearly impossible to work with using standard tools.

At least, that's been my experience, others may have found the process 
easier.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     
New GPG Key!  Old key expires 2007-03-25.  Upgrade NOW!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2132 bytes --]

On Thursday 22 February 2007 01:58, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Or you could dp it the way Boyd does it - with his / on an lvm group. To
> do that he needs an initramfs which has drivers for at least his disk
> bus, his disk adapter, the filesystem on / and lvm before his kernel
> can access /. Genkernel is just an easy automated way to do that.

Or it would be, but the last initramfs it generated for me wouldn't start 
my 
md0 (whole-disk software RAID via mdadm) device, which is part of the 
volume 
group holding /.  [I should try again, perhaps genkernel has gotten smart 
enough to read my mdadm.conf, ala Debian, and start whole-disk software 
RAID.]

Right now, I get dumped to a shell prompt inside the initramfs each time my 
system boots, I then have to start my volume group manually in partial mode 
to get (RO) access to the block device / is on.  [I don't seem to even have 
the right tools inside the initramfs to bring up whole-disk software RAID, 
or 
at least I haven't figured out how.]  Then Gentoo tries to boot but fails 
because it can't mount / as RW (lvm marks lvs in vgs started in partial 
mode 
as RO block devices) although it doesn't bail out quickly, so it thinks 
certain services (like localmount) have started when they haven't.

I then log in as root and bring all the lvs to RW status, remount /, 
restart 
the 3-4 services that Gentoo thinks are up, and let it continue.

In short, my boot process is fsck'd, but I don't reboot enough to have it 
really bother me.  But, this thread isn't really about my troubles even if 
some of my setup *is* useful as examples of why you might need an 
initramfs.

[My fsck'd setup also shows how powerful the layered startup in *nix is.  
Failing to find your C: drive in Windows is not really recoverable without 
boot media.]

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     
New GPG Key!  Old key expires 2007-03-25.  Upgrade NOW!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Dirk Heinrichs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2095 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 schrieb ext Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.:

> For the life of me, I always found it easier to get an initrd working
> rather
> than an initramfs -- the whole chroot/exec vs. pivot_root vs. switch_root
> step always failed for me when using an initramfs (and the very same
> shell script worked as an initrd).

Here's what I use in my initramfs' linuxrc:

# change roots
echo "initramfs: Switching to real root volume" 2>&1
find -xdev / -exec rm '{}' ';'
cd /newroot
mount --move . /
echo "initramfs: Starting init with options ${INIT_OPTS} ..."
exec chroot . /bin/bash <<- EOF >/dev/console
exec /sbin/init ${INIT_OPTS}
EOF

The only thing I didn't get to work so far is freeing the used space (that 
find command should do the job, but gives me som error msg).

> Also, a script-made initrd is still 
> just a compressed filesystem, easy to deal with, but a script-made
> initramfs (particularly one made by genkernel) is not just a cpio
> archive, it's a series of them separated by some !!!!KERNEL_MAGIC!!!!
> strings in the middle of binary data -- nearly impossible to work with
> using standard tools.
>
> At least, that's been my experience, others may have found the process
> easier.

I just maintain /usr/src/initramfs which contains all the stuff that should 
go in, put the name of this directory into the kernel config 
(CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE="/usr/src/initramfs"), build the kernel. That's a 
very simple thing to do if you don't need to load any modules from within 
initramfs (I just do the evms_activate stuff) and will give you only one 
file to deal with.

/usr/src/initramfs itself is filled by a self-constructed script prior to 
building a new kernel.

Bye...

	Dirk
-- 
Dirk Heinrichs          | Tel:  +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager   | Fax:  +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland   | Mail: dirk.heinrichs@capgemini.com
Hambornerstraße 55      | Web:  http://www.capgemini.com
D-40472 Düsseldorf      | ICQ#: 110037733
GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 22 February 2007, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> For the life of me, I always found it easier to get an initrd working
> rather
> than an initramfs 

[snip]

> At least, that's been my experience, others may have found the
> process easier.

No you are not alone. I eventually found proof that successfully making 
an initramfs is a process involving a lot of voodoo, full moons, eye of 
newt and a human sacrifice.

Oh yeah, there's aliens involved too. But I only got the proof I 
mentioned after I signed an NDA with the alien's, so I can't give you 
the proof too otherwise I'd have to kill you right away.

So sorry, you'll have to stick with the good old stuff that can be 
understood. Thank $DEITY for Gentoo where such things are possible...

alan

-- 
Optimists say the glass is half full,
Pessimists say the glass is half empty,
Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be?

Alan McKinnon
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[pat]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:10:59 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote
> On Thursday 22 February 2007, "pat" <pat@xvalheru.org> wrote about 
> 'Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???':
> > Only (probably) last question: If I want to play with the Xen I can
> > compile SATA support directly to kernel and it will be still OK ???
> 
> Yes.
> 

Thanks. I'll play with my kernel :-)

     Pat
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 503 bytes --]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:08:23 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

> I am fairly certain I was still using my custom initrd (not an
> initramfs) until 2.6.17 -- I'm fairly sure 2.6.20 still *supports*
> initrd format, even if initramfs is preferred now.

It does, I have a system that boots 2.6.20 using an initrd. It works fine
and I don't feel inclined to get involved in initramfs voodoo just to
change an already working system 


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Don't let the computer bugs bite!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Dirk Heinrichs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1070 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 schrieb ext Neil Bothwick:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:08:23 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > I am fairly certain I was still using my custom initrd (not an
> > initramfs) until 2.6.17 -- I'm fairly sure 2.6.20 still *supports*
> > initrd format, even if initramfs is preferred now.
>
> It does, I have a system that boots 2.6.20 using an initrd. It works fine
> and I don't feel inclined to get involved in initramfs voodoo just to
> change an already working system

What is that "voodoo" you're talking about. I did boot my /-on-EVMS system 
with an initrd for years, only to find out that initramfs is so much easier 
to set up. If there's voodoo, it's in initrd.

Bye...

	Dirk
-- 
Dirk Heinrichs          | Tel:  +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager   | Fax:  +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland   | Mail: dirk.heinrichs@capgemini.com
Hambornerstraße 55      | Web:  http://www.capgemini.com
D-40472 Düsseldorf      | ICQ#: 110037733
GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 674 bytes --]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:11:07 +0100, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:

> > It does, I have a system that boots 2.6.20 using an initrd. It works
> > fine and I don't feel inclined to get involved in initramfs voodoo
> > just to change an already working system  
> 
> What is that "voodoo" you're talking about. I did boot my /-on-EVMS
> system with an initrd for years, only to find out that initramfs is so
> much easier to set up. If there's voodoo, it's in initrd.

If I was starting from scratch, I'd use initramfs, but the initrd is
already working and requires zero effort - if it ain't broke...


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Always be sincere even if you don't mean it.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]