Eric, Sorry for not replying soon. I've been busy with real job and life, config file support is not yet written, though I'm still willing to do it (+ USB support etc..) This situation would not seem to change in a month or two..
-----Original Message----- From: ebiederman@lnxi.com (Eric W. Biederman) Sent: 04 Apr 2004 21:10:51 -0600 To: ron minnich rminnich@lanl.gov Subject: Re: FILO 0.4 [PMX:#]
ron minnich rminnich@lanl.gov writes:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, Yinghai Lu wrote:
I have checked the Etherboot, and it would be some easier to integrate filo into Etherboot.
Not everyone here at LANL is that satisfied with etherboot, and in fact we are moving over to FILO. There are a lot of reasons. We've just had lots better luck with FILO when all things are considered.
Ron, is LANL going to maintain FILO then?
Unless I hear from SONE soon it is starting to look like like FILO is unmaintained.
Has any one implemented config files? Has any one implemented listing of files?
What do you do when you don't have a disk?
Eric _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
___________________________________________________________________________
Takeshi Sone ts1@tsn.or.jp writes:
Eric, Sorry for not replying soon. I've been busy with real job and life, config file support is not yet written, though I'm still willing to do it (+ USB support etc..) This situation would not seem to change in a month or two..
Ok. I was starting to wonder if you were out there.
I am looking at using FILO as a disked based bootloader. So I might just write that code and send you a patch.
Right now I think a bootloader of this type with a config file is not terribly useful.
Eric
I am looking at using FILO as a disked based bootloader. So I might just write that code and send you a patch.
Right now I think a bootloader of this type with a config file is not terribly useful.
Bootloader sounds nice. It should be compatible with Win2K and XP right ? Dmitry/
On 5 Apr 2004, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I am looking at using FILO as a disked based bootloader. So I might just write that code and send you a patch.
We want FILO in FLASH, not on disk. We are using FLASH-based FILO to replace FLASH-based Etherboot on Pink and will be using FILO to replace Etherboot on Lightning and Blue Steel to load images from IDE-FLASH. We are very happy with its capability in that mode. It's just a ton easier for a sysadmin to mount the IDE-FLASH as ext2 and change kernel file names instead of dd-ing raw kernel images onto an IDE-FLASH. FILO lets us treat IDE-FLASH as a file system, and Etherboot had us treating it as a raw disk. We prefer FILO at this point, and I think we will not be the only ones. Also we have found the build procedure for FILO to be less prone to error and problems than for Etherboot.
That's not to say Etherboot does not have *many* applications: it is terrific for lots of things, just not for our clusters right now.
Right now I think a bootloader of this type with a config file is not terribly useful.
It is all context. I think we need to turn our thinking a bit. The BIOS you use is going to become more application-specific. What you have in an embedded "black box" will not need to be identical to what you have on your desk or your cluster. I think this is all to the good.
ron
BTW I'm on vacation, so if you don't hear from me it's not that I don't care, it's just that I am not paid to care while on vacation :-)
ron
-
Dmitry Borisov -
ebiederman＠lnxi.com -
ron minnich -
Takeshi Sone