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

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@g.o mailing list