1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 19:18 on Wednesday 05 January 2011, Mark |
2 |
Knecht did opine thusly: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Alex Schuster <wonko@×××××××××.org> wrote: |
5 |
> > Jörg Schaible writes: |
6 |
> >> Alex Schuster wrote: |
7 |
> >> > I would be surprised if it had this feature. AFAIK grub is already |
8 |
> >> > done at this stage, the kernel has taken over. And I guess it does |
9 |
> >> > not know about the LABEL= syntax, and has no code to scan all devices |
10 |
> >> > for file system labels. |
11 |
> >> |
12 |
> >> I fear so, too. Grub finds the boot device properly, it's the kernel |
13 |
> >> complaining about the value in the root option. |
14 |
> >> |
15 |
> >> > With an initramfs, the kernel runs an init script which can do various |
16 |
> >> > stuff, like probing all devices for file system labels. |
17 |
> >> |
18 |
> >> I never had the need for an initrd. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > Now you do :) |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > Wonko |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Wonko, |
25 |
> I did my first initramfs build this last week to get RAID6 working |
26 |
> for /. It went well and I was impressed at how much I could debug in a |
27 |
> shell before I got it working correctly. (Big issue for me - make sure |
28 |
> you copy all the /dev/sdX stuff you are going to need into the |
29 |
> initramfs, and make sure mdadm is built static.) |
30 |
> |
31 |
> QUESTION: What's the difference between initrd and initramfs in |
32 |
> practice. As I understand it initramfs is the newer one. I assume that |
33 |
> means it's preferred? Or are there times when someone wants to still |
34 |
> use an initrd? |
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
AFAIK, initramfs is the newer preferred one and it's either one or the other |
38 |
with initrd being seldom used these days if at all. |
39 |
|
40 |
Many people still call it initrd even if int's initramfs in use - sort of a |
41 |
slang thing |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |