Messages in this thread | | | From | Dave Cinege <> | Subject | Re: Abbott and Costello meet Crunch Time -- Penultimate 2.5 merge candidate list. | Date | Wed, 30 Oct 2002 04:32:23 -0500 |
| |
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 3:37, Russell King wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 03:22:17AM -0500, Dave Cinege wrote: > > Do you have any serious sysadmin, clustering, or emebedded system > > IMPLEMENTATION experience? > > Please don't get personal, or you'll end up in peoples kill files.
It's not personal. He made a wild 'No one needs any of this[initrd]' statement. Is he coming from 'this looks like a good idea'(coder) or 'I can prove this is a good idea through experience examples.' (systems engineer)
I can prove to you (for one thing) that when the shit hits the fan (disaster recovery) initrd is a good option to have.
> ARM is basically embedded today, and I support initramfs. I don't > believe your "embedded system" argument holds any water. Yes, it
High level embedded systems...low level systems could care less.
> is a different way of doing things, but it can (and does here) > support initrd images.
The point to this is:
Linking an image into the kernel LOOKS nice, but I would sure not want to deploy it because it becomes an adminstation nightmare. Even with initrd, a single file can be a problem...this is why my patch supports extracting multiple tar.gz archives....to maintain configuration modularity.
Having an image in the kernel is not a bad thing...making it the only option is.
Dave
-- The time is now 22:48 (Totalitarian) - http://www.ccops.org/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |