View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
mksoft l33t
Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 844
|
Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 2:18 pm Post subject: Is /boot really needed during the installation |
|
|
Why the documentation recommends/suggests creating /boot parition during setup
I thought this issue was resolved with grub and lilo (latest versions) overcoming the 1024 cylinders issue.
I have 4 distros on my machine on seperate partitions/disks and not using /boot in any of them.
Any ideas _________________ There's someone in my head but it's not me - Pink Floyd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DArtagnan l33t
Joined: 30 Apr 2002 Posts: 942 Location: Israel, Jerusalem
|
Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe to keep the "bzImage" and the other info. secured ? Out of other hands? _________________ All for one and one for All
--
MACPRO machine... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
klieber Bodhisattva
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 Posts: 3657 Location: San Francisco, CA
|
Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 2:24 pm Post subject: Re: Is /boot really needed during the installation |
|
|
mksoft wrote: | Why the documentation recommends/suggests creating /boot parition during setup |
Because it's the Smart Thing To Do. It's certainly not required, but with a dedicated boot partition, you can leave it unmounted during normal use and not worry about borking something boot-related. You can also control security a bit easier.
Linux will run fine without it and if you're happy with the way your other machines are running, then you should stick with what you're comfortable with.
--kurt _________________ The problem with political jokes is that they get elected |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mksoft l33t
Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 844
|
Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 2:43 pm Post subject: Re: Is /boot really needed during the installation |
|
|
klieber wrote: | Because it's the Smart Thing To Do. It's certainly not required, but with a dedicated boot partition, you can leave it unmounted during normal use and not worry about borking something boot-related. You can also control security a bit easier.
Linux will run fine without it and if you're happy with the way your other machines are running, then you should stick with what you're comfortable with.
--kurt |
How is it more secure ? If someone has privileges to write into your /boot directory you're in trouble (protecting /boot should be the least of your worries).
He should have no problems mounting /boot and playing with it as he wishes.
As for not messing up, the way I can see it messed up is if you do
and in that case a working /boot partition won't help you much _________________ There's someone in my head but it's not me - Pink Floyd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
klieber Bodhisattva
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 Posts: 3657 Location: San Francisco, CA
|
Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 4:34 pm Post subject: Re: Is /boot really needed during the installation |
|
|
mksoft wrote: | How is it more secure ? If someone has privileges to write into your /boot directory you're in trouble (protecting /boot should be the least of your worries). |
I didn't say it was more secure. I said it was easier to control the security since you can control it at the mount point rather than the directory level.
mksoft wrote: | As for not messing up, the way I can see it messed up is if you do
and in that case a working /boot partition won't help you much |
That's one way, but certainly not the only way. And a working boot partition will certailny help you restore from a rm -rf / fubar faster than a bare metal recovery will.
Some other benefits of a separate boot partition:
- Not affected by a user filling up the / partition with some rogue/stupid process. (yes, you can use quotas as well)
- A corrupted / file system doesn't affect /boot
- different file systems, so you can use ext2 (more reliable) for /boot and still use reiser (higher performance) for /
Again, a separate boot partition is not *required*. IMO, it's simply a smart and easy thing to do. If you don't think it's worth the hassle, then don't do it. It's that simple.
--kurt _________________ The problem with political jokes is that they get elected |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mksoft l33t
Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 844
|
Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: Is /boot really needed during the installation |
|
|
klieber wrote: |
Some other benefits of a separate boot partition:
- Not affected by a user filling up the / partition with some rogue/stupid process. (yes, you can use quotas as well)
- A corrupted / file system doesn't affect /boot
- different file systems, so you can use ext2 (more reliable) for /boot and still use reiser (higher performance) for /
--kurt |
As for filling up, I create a seperate partition for /home (and share it between all the distros installed).
If you have a corrupted filesystem working /boot won't help alot either. You're better off with boot/rescue disk/cd.
The original question was why the documentation suggests /boot. I think adding a comment that /boot is recommended instead of required is adequate.
But as you've said, it is a matter of preference and the beauty of Gentoo is high
level customization to your preferences so will leave it at that
I guess that this closes the thread _________________ There's someone in my head but it's not me - Pink Floyd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lx Veteran
Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 1012 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2002 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To be secury you need to mount the / read-only and have /root /home /var on other partitions. , boot into single user and mount / to update your system. etc.
So no you don't have to use a seperate /boot partition, I never did, but now I found out it's very usefull to have a small ext2 partition with the bootloader, so I also use it as /boot.
But it ain't more secure or you can recover from crashes because after the kernel is loaded init needs to be loaded etc. so /bin /sbin and /lib are also needed.
Oops stated the very obvious again, lX _________________ "Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over.", Frank Zappa |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|