On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 13:13 +0800, Cocoy Dayao wrote: > personally, i find initrd just adds complexity where there should be > less. i've never tried it myself. but from the distros that i've seen > that do use it... they use it to boot / if / uses fs like reiserfs, > xfs... etc. don't know if they do use it to boot if the fs is also > ext2/3. > > > if ever the root fs is ext3 (which makes good sense)... you don't need > mkinitrd.
initrd is not required for ReiserFS or XFS root filesystems. Even a system with an XFS root filesystem and without an ext2/3 /boot can work without an initrd. What you need an initrd for are: 1. Encrypted (using dm-crypt) root filesystem with unencrypted /boot. 2. Root filesystem inside LVM (or an encrypted LVM with root inside it). 3. Kernel that needs a loadable module to access root filesystem because the necessary support wasn't compiled-in statically. Cheers! -- Federico Sevilla III F S 3 Consulting Inc. http://www.fs3.ph
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
