coreboot November 2004

coreboot@coreboot.org

31 participants
183 discussions

RE: FILO fixups
by Dave Aubin 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

Then I am happy:-) -----Original Message----- From: Ronald G. Minnich [mailto:rminnich@lanl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:58 PM To: Dave Aubin Cc: Li-Ta Lo; YhLu; LinuxBIOS Subject: RE: FILO fixups On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Dave Aubin wrote: > Although...sniff I do like it in etherboot;) it will stay in etherboot, no question about that! ron

1 0

RE: FILO fixups
by Ronald G. Minnich 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Dave Aubin wrote: > Although...sniff I do like it in etherboot;) it will stay in etherboot, no question about that! ron

1 0

RE: FILO fixups
by Dave Aubin 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

Filo does need a home and it can run outside of etherboot So I would concede that is ok to have a home for it. Although...sniff I do like it in etherboot;) -----Original Message----- From: Li-Ta Lo [mailto:ollie@lanl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:46 PM To: Dave Aubin Cc: Ronald G. Minnich; YhLu; LinuxBIOS Subject: RE: FILO fixups On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 13:21, Dave Aubin wrote: > Hi, > > I'll voice my desire to have etherboot with filo. > I love the fact that I can first try to boot remotely And then if not > use filo. For this reason alone I am A fan of the mechanism. Try > remote first then if fail Use local storage. If we can, can we please > put the Etherboot flavor in utils that has both network & filo > support? > First of all, we didn't say we don't want choice. Actually we want more, including the choice of not having some choices. The problems of FILO/Etherboot are: 1. Some people have hard time building Etherboot. 2. Some people don't want the feature provided by Etherboot, they are satisfied by FILO itself. 3. FILO (as FILO itself) does not have an official host. If we want to continue maintain FILO to serve people in 1. and 2., we have to put it somewhere. If you want FILO as FILO+Etherboot, why don't you get it from etherboot project? Ollie

1 0

RE: FILO fixups
by Dave Aubin 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

Ah, that could be the culprit. I'm using reiserfs, not ext2 With filo. Although it says it supports it. Perhaps it is The file system that caused my hair loss!!!! ;) Yes, having the net connection does make things nice...if ya have it:) -----Original Message----- From: Ronald G. Minnich [mailto:rminnich@lanl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:42 PM To: Dave Aubin Cc: Li-Ta Lo; YhLu; LinuxBIOS Subject: RE: FILO fixups On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Dave Aubin wrote: > Consider the redundancy aspect of it. First try remote. again, if you have remote to try, that's fine, go for it. If you don't have that ethernet connection, then counting on etherboot is kind of pointless :-) > There is also the error in filo where it can not handle an elf With > both a kernel and initrd. It can only handle a kernel. > To use filo I had to pack it up with initramfs, i.e. one big kernel. > Etherboot remote boot doesn't have this problem. ?? in an ext2 on filo, i've got a kernel and initrd and it loads it up just fine, so I don't see what you mean. ron

1 0

RE: FILO fixups
by Li-Ta Lo 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 13:21, Dave Aubin wrote: > Hi, > > I'll voice my desire to have etherboot with filo. > I love the fact that I can first try to boot remotely > And then if not use filo. For this reason alone I am > A fan of the mechanism. Try remote first then if fail > Use local storage. If we can, can we please put the > Etherboot flavor in utils that has both network & filo support? > First of all, we didn't say we don't want choice. Actually we want more, including the choice of not having some choices. The problems of FILO/Etherboot are: 1. Some people have hard time building Etherboot. 2. Some people don't want the feature provided by Etherboot, they are satisfied by FILO itself. 3. FILO (as FILO itself) does not have an official host. If we want to continue maintain FILO to serve people in 1. and 2., we have to put it somewhere. If you want FILO as FILO+Etherboot, why don't you get it from etherboot project? Ollie

1 0

RE: FILO fixups
by Ronald G. Minnich 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Dave Aubin wrote: > Consider the redundancy aspect of it. First try remote. again, if you have remote to try, that's fine, go for it. If you don't have that ethernet connection, then counting on etherboot is kind of pointless :-) > There is also the error in filo where it can not handle an elf > With both a kernel and initrd. It can only handle a kernel. > To use filo I had to pack it up with initramfs, i.e. one big kernel. > Etherboot remote boot doesn't have this problem. ?? in an ext2 on filo, i've got a kernel and initrd and it loads it up just fine, so I don't see what you mean. ron

1 0

RE: FILO fixups
by Dave Aubin 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

Consider the redundancy aspect of it. First try remote. If that fails go local or vs versa. Kinda like if mom is Around listen to her, if she's not around well then think For yourself;) Consider embedded size aspect of it as well. A kernel and Initrd in my situation is about 4Meg. On my local drive it Is about half that. Size costs more on my embedded local side. I do like the versatility of etherboot having both local and Net in one, but I totally understand why you'd want just filo As the kernel can do the remote side. There is also the error in filo where it can not handle an elf With both a kernel and initrd. It can only handle a kernel. To use filo I had to pack it up with initramfs, i.e. one big kernel. Etherboot remote boot doesn't have this problem. -----Original Message----- From: linuxbios-admin(a)clustermatic.org [mailto:linuxbios-admin@clustermatic.org] On Behalf Of Li-Ta Lo Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:05 PM To: YhLu Cc: Ronald G. Minnich; LinuxBIOS Subject: RE: FILO fixups On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 12:00, YhLu wrote: > The reason for put filo in etherboot. > 1. It can let boot from HD or net according to CMOS setting. > 2. Etherboot can produce zelf. We may got more space to put other > stuff such as USB support... > 3. Etherboot structure and support... > > I may check if filo.zlef only include FILO ..., even it is not, we > still can make it clean. > You have the same blind spot as Eric. For many people, boot over net is irrelevant. Why do they need to live with the overhead of network protocol stack and driver if all they want to to boot form some mass storage device ? Ollie _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios(a)clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

1 0

RE: FILO fixups
by Ronald G. Minnich 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Dave Aubin wrote: > I'll voice my desire to have etherboot with filo. that's fine. choice is good. I have no complaints about that at all. That's why I am saying we chose filo. At some later time we might choose etherboot. ron

1 0

RE: FILO fixups
by Dave Aubin 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

Hi, I'll voice my desire to have etherboot with filo. I love the fact that I can first try to boot remotely And then if not use filo. For this reason alone I am A fan of the mechanism. Try remote first then if fail Use local storage. If we can, can we please put the Etherboot flavor in utils that has both network & filo support? Kind thanks, Dave:) -----Original Message----- From: linuxbios-admin(a)clustermatic.org [mailto:linuxbios-admin@clustermatic.org] On Behalf Of Ronald G. Minnich Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:56 PM To: YhLu Cc: Li-Ta Lo; LinuxBIOS Subject: RE: FILO fixups On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, YhLu wrote: > 1. It can let boot from HD or net according to CMOS setting. only useful if your ethernet is hooked up. 15/16 of our nodes here have no ethernet. > 2. Etherboot can produce zelf. We may got more space to put other > stuff such as USB support... not that important to us. > 3. Etherboot structure and support... not clear at the moment if this is a plus or minus. Seeing that it has trouble building under certain tool chains, there still seem to be problems with it. > I may check if filo.zlef only include FILO ..., even it is not, we > still can make it clean. We still need to add my performance improvements. ron _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios(a)clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

1 0

FILO fixups
by Ronald G. Minnich 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

I've just finished fixups to filo that make it quite a bit faster. First, it used to scan the bus twice, the first time to do a count. That's slow, although it was a nice algorithm. But it only needed to find at most 2 devices. Now it scans until the device is found and returns it. Even in the worst case, the new pci scan is always faster than the old. There are new options in addition to PCI_BRUTE_SCAN. PCI_BRUTE_SCAN means: scan everything ... PCI_BRUTE_SCAN_START ... but start at this bus (VERY good on k8, as the scan of 0:19.* takes FOREVER). PCI_BRUTE_SCAN_LIMIT = 2 ... and end here -1(useful when you know that the busses don't range to 256) And the 'instant gratification' option: IDE_HINT_BUS IDE_HINT_DEV IDE_HINT_FUNC All three must be set or not set or you get a compile-time warning. IF all three are set, FILO will probe the device and IF it is an ide controller use that. If it's not an ide controller, filo will scan busses as usual. This last option REALLY speeds things up ron

4 8

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

coreboot November 2004