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@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.
- It can let boot from HD or net according to CMOS setting.
- 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@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios