Re: [cobalt-users] Root volume too full

["E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:43:45 -0500 (EST)
> From: flash22@xxxxxxx

(some snipping)

> Not all unix's run on PeeCee's with partition tables ;P

I was actually being stock-Linux-on-x86-specific for once. ;-)  I
probably should add a big warning when I'm doing that. *grin*

> OK, think like this, if your kernel mounts the partition that it booted
> from, than thet partition MUST be /, and if you put the kernel on
> ? itself, then any directory can be a mount point, but if you put the
> kernel in say /usr, then you also require that /usr be part of / and you
> can't make it a seperate slice/partition/device

No.  The x86 Linux machine on which my Pine session is running
has a /boot/kernel partition where I keep my kernels.  Never is
it mounted /.  With Linux, all that matters is the CHS mappings.
The kernel DOES NOT need to be on the root-mounted partition on
Linux.

Now, truth be known, I've not tried moving my BSD kernels from /
just yet.  But there I use a small (100 MB or so) root partition,
so the 2^10 limit doesn't apply.

> LILO is doing a lot of things behind the scenes to accomplish that,
> including seeting rootflags on the kernel image so it knows where / is,
> linux doesn't need to assume / = vboot, but old traditions take a while to
> die off...

No disagreement there.

> bsd has ALWAYS had a completly different way of bootstrapping the machine,
> i like some parts of it, but i hate slices ;P
> But we won't go there

You hate slices.  I like them.  I suppose that never the twain
shall meet. ;-)

> > I usually go so far as to waste a partition ID on an 8 MB or so
> > /boot slice at the front of the disk.  Easy way to prevent BIOS
> > stupidity with cylinders beyond 1023.
> 
> Yup, good practice, It also means your chances of corrupting the
> filesystem you need to boot from is minimal, since boot is in it's own
> filesystem.

That too.  There'd need to be a really angry program splattering
random sectors to touch the kernels when they're on a totally
different partition.  (Warning:  Use of Linux terminology on a
Linux list.)

> Putting the system image in / was the same idea,back when, most of
> the directories in / were in fact mount points, but the quantity of stuff
> that has been put in the directories that are expected to be mounted as
> part of / has grown so much it doesn't make any sense to do it that way
> anymore (eg /etc)

Yup.  Personally, I'd like to see a system where /bin, /sbin, and
/etc contain only what's needed to get the system running and
mount /usr, /var, /home, and so on.

Which reminds me:  Who was the total idiot who (at least on
Cobalts and my Slackware boxen) decided to dynamically link /sbin
and /bin binaries?!  ARGH!  Anything needed during bootstrap
should IMHO be statically linked...

> I suppose when i say 'used to' i should point out i sometimes mean 'long
> long ago' :)