daubin at actuality-systems.com
Mon Nov 1 14:15:00 CET 2004
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
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.
From: linuxbios-admin at clustermatic.org
[mailto:linuxbios-admin at clustermatic.org] On Behalf Of Li-Ta Lo
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:05 PM
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 ?
Linuxbios mailing list
Linuxbios at clustermatic.org
More information about the coreboot