You are not logged in.

#1 2006-03-29 17:35:17

cl0wn
Member
Registered: 2005-12-29
Posts: 32

INITRD - WHY?

Hi all,
I don't  really know if it's the right forum for this topic, but I'd like ask some questions smile
Why arch uses INITRD? What are advantagesdisadvantages of initrd? Today I've compiled my custom kernel with abs and I saw that I don't need initrd to boot my system (i've tried to boot without initrd that after mkinitrd failing to create new initrd).
I'm not some kind of linux progeek or smth but I think that it could make (or even makes) more problems than solves (if any?) smile
Opinionslinksflames are welcome..

cl0wn


knowledge is p0wer...

Offline

#2 2006-03-29 17:40:30

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,837

Re: INITRD - WHY?

It's the right forum alright, but it's been covered very well when Arch migrated to initrd. Did you do a search? All the pros and cons are there. You can also look in the mailing list and bug-tracker.

Offline

#3 2006-03-29 17:41:32

nogoma
Member
From: Cranston, RI
Registered: 2006-03-01
Posts: 217

Re: INITRD - WHY?

For one, initrd (and initramfs) allows the system access to some modules and utilities that it can't get at until the systems is booted wink. A bit of the chicken-and-the-egg. For example, I have my system on LVM, which requires the lvm utilities to mount. But,of course, it can't get at the lvm binaries until the system is mounted. So, we stick a statically compiled version of the lvm binaries into an initrd/initramfs, which can be mounted temporarily in order to be able to then mount the actual system. Sounds complicated, I know, but basically initrd/ramfs is great, but not in anyway critical to getting a "standard" system running.


-nogoma
---
Code Happy, Code Ruby!
http://www.last.fm/user/nogoma/

Offline

#4 2006-03-29 18:25:52

ozar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2005-02-18
Posts: 1,681

Re: INITRD - WHY?

Yes, this subject was heavily discussed in previous threads.  Here are a couple of the more detailed threads about it:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=16224

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=16199


oz

Offline

#5 2006-03-29 20:40:57

cl0wn
Member
Registered: 2005-12-29
Posts: 32

Re: INITRD - WHY?

so as I see it, it won't cause me any trouble if I won't use initrd:)
thanks guys smile


knowledge is p0wer...

Offline

#6 2006-03-31 17:44:50

johnisevil
Member
From: Hamilton, ON Canada
Registered: 2003-08-07
Posts: 221
Website

Re: INITRD - WHY?

cl0wn wrote:

so as I see it, it won't cause me any trouble if I won't use initrd:)
thanks guys smile

If you use custom kernels it won't make any difference.  Personally, I think initrd is a waste.   I get that it can make for a smaller, modular kernel, but a lot of the things that it needs to load early in the boot process are things that should be built into the kernel and not as modules.  As someone that's been using Linux for almost 10 years, I've gotten in the habit of building anything vital into the kernel.  Things like chipset support, SATA disk support, RAID, etc. are no brainers.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB