Any reason for a boot partition

jmdennis · 2009-11-28 09:01:30

This is not a big deal but I just wanted to see why it was necessary to have a boot partition. I know that if you select this partition to install grub rather then the MBR it will not work. I also see that OpenSUSE does not require a boot partition. I was just wondering why this is required still.

tverdok · 2009-11-28 09:09:42

Well there are couple reasons I can think of right now:
1. easier restoration if your arch install gets damaged
2. necessity for lvm set up (unless you use grub2)
3. faster system boot if set up with ext2

EDIT: Ps. It's not necessary, but I would recommend having it.

Last edited by tverdok (2009-11-28 09:16:41)

the_isz · 2009-11-28 09:20:20

The main reason for having a separate boot partition - in my eyes - is that you
are able to have your operating system reside on a partition type that your
bootloader isn't able to read.

.:B:. · 2009-11-28 09:50:43

There seem to be some issues still with GRUB and Ext4, so if your root partition is Ext4, it's a good thing to split out your /boot.

dyscoria · 2009-11-28 11:35:09

Some argue for a security benefit aswell, as you can mount your boot partition read only (which is what I do). Have to remember to remount read-write before upgrading kernel though!

jelly · 2009-11-28 12:00:23

isn't an seperate partition also nice if your / runs out of free space

tverdok · 2009-11-28 12:11:32

jelly wrote:

isn't an seperate partition also nice if your / runs out of free space

That's more appliable to separating /home and /data, but sure why not?!

kgas · 2009-11-28 13:14:55

earlier used to have separate partitions for boot / var etc. recently installed arch with / as ext4 fs and no boot partition, works nicely. If you plan for ext4 better to keep the number of partitions minimum as the file systems checking will delay the boot process.

broch · 2009-12-10 19:11:18

why would you mount /boot at all?
I do not have mounted /boot partition as this is not needed:
/dev/sda1 /boot ext2 acl,noatime,noexec,noauto,user_xattr 0 0

there is no need to mount /boot with except when you install new kernel and/or modify grub.

in effect fs checking will not affect boot time.

If security is a consideration you would have to change ACL for /lib/modules obviously.

syfe · 2009-12-26 04:54:50

I definately prefer /boot for the safety option. If your main filesystem gets too badly messed up, you still want your kernel and fsck to load; otherwise, you have to resort to recovery cds which is a big waste of time (especially if you don't have a livecd at hand...).

mikesd · 2009-12-26 05:04:56

I use lvm and grub on most of my boxes so use a boot partition. Before I used lvm I sometimes used a boot partition and sometimes didn't use one. I think in future I would always use one as I can't think of a reason not to.

sHyLoCk · 2009-12-26 05:54:43

why would you mount /boot at all?

I use reiserfs for /boot and unmount it in rc.local, there's no need to keep it mounted. If you want to keep it mounted, use "ro" .

R00KIE · 2009-12-26 16:22:06

I guess I'm lucky then ... I have just reorganized all my partitions and they are all ext4, including root, and everything works well.
I believe that for lvm and encrypted disks you would want to have a separate /boot but I wasn't aware of problems with ext4, I thought that was taken care of in arch quite some time ago.

Just for the sake of not getting caught by surprise sometime in the future, which would be the recommended filesystem for /boot?

@sHyLoCk
How do you handle kernel updates? Always remember to remount rw before updating?

vacant · 2009-12-26 20:41:26

My /, home, /tmp, swap etc are all LVM2. The volume group is set up on a luks-encrypted partition which grub can't read so I need a separate ext2 /boot.

sHyLoCk · 2009-12-27 01:45:12

R00KIE wrote:

@sHyLoCk
How do you handle kernel updates? Always remember to remount rw before updating?

Yup, I mount it as rw. It's not so tedious for me considering I compile and update kernel manually.

thisllub · 2009-12-27 11:12:06

I use a lot of VMs and identical physical machines.
Having a boot partition saves a lot of stress when copying machines (real and virtual) using dd.

I see LVM and snapshot backups as essential so there a separate boot is virtually mandatory anyway.

broch · 2009-12-28 00:17:35

sHyLoCk wrote:

why would you mount /boot at all?
I use reiserfs for /boot and unmount it in rc.local, there's no need to keep it mounted. If you want to keep it mounted, use "ro" .

fstab should handle mounting/unmounting internal disk fs that is fstab role. If your reason for unmounting /boot is security, then handling /boot from rc.local will never be good enough. Moreover you need to take care of /lib/modules/kernel to prevent module loading/unloading.

Reiserfs for /boot sounds like waste

Vamp898 · 2009-12-28 11:21:18

I think for an simple 1 Harddisk Desktop or Notebook you can go fine with just one / partition.

Last edited by Vamp898 (2009-12-28 11:21:30)

sHyLoCk · 2009-12-28 11:39:03

broch wrote:

sHyLoCk wrote:
why would you mount /boot at all?
I use reiserfs for /boot and unmount it in rc.local, there's no need to keep it mounted. If you want to keep it mounted, use "ro" .
fstab should handle mounting/unmounting internal disk fs that is fstab role. If your reason for unmounting /boot is security, then handling /boot from rc.local will never be good enough. Moreover you need to take care of /lib/modules/kernel to prevent module loading/unloading.
Reiserfs for /boot sounds like waste

I just mount it as read-only, I was suggesting this as an option to someone concerned about security. Also I think for Lilo users /boot has to be mounted.
ReiserFS is a fine choice imho. It handles small files faster and better than any other FS, I use reiserFS for /boot and /var/tmp and for /, ext4 and everything else XFS.

Last edited by sHyLoCk (2009-12-28 11:45:04)

broch · 2010-01-01 05:12:26

I just mount it as read-only, I was suggesting this as an option to someone concerned about security.

by definition, rc.local is too late to consider this as a security measure at all.
reiserfs is slower on small partition (50MB usually for /boot, but anything under 1GB will work faster on ext2) than ext2, it is also less secure (journal), and it wastes (as does any journaling fs) a lot of space.

whether someone will create separate /boot or not it is more question of taste than anything else. So if one has separate /boot it or not it really does not matter.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-11-28 09:01:30

Any reason for a boot partition

#2 2009-11-28 09:09:42

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#3 2009-11-28 09:20:20

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#4 2009-11-28 09:50:43

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#5 2009-11-28 11:35:09

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#6 2009-11-28 12:00:23

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#7 2009-11-28 12:11:32

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#8 2009-11-28 13:14:55

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#9 2009-12-10 19:11:18

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#10 2009-12-26 04:54:50

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#11 2009-12-26 05:04:56

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#12 2009-12-26 05:54:43

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#13 2009-12-26 16:22:06

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#14 2009-12-26 20:41:26

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#15 2009-12-27 01:45:12

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#16 2009-12-27 11:12:06

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#17 2009-12-28 00:17:35

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#18 2009-12-28 11:21:18

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#19 2009-12-28 11:39:03

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

#20 2010-01-01 05:12:26

Re: Any reason for a boot partition

Board footer