Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:09:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Marius Bendiksen <mbendiks@eunet.no> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ideas concerning fsck Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10010251906240.54726-100000@login-1.eunet.no> In-Reply-To: <xzpu2a2s568.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > We can get around the need for fstab by using the bootfs idea that AIX and > > others use (Poul-Henning has suggested this also in connection with DEVFS) > > to get less magic in the boot sequence. > I'm not familiar with the concept of bootfs - can somebody enlighten > me? Certainly. A bootfs is basically a filesystem that the system can boot from, which will be in a safe state, because changes are not written back to disk. One example would be when you make an MFS image and boot from it, the other would be doing SCO-style stripped down fs'es which are mounted read-only. The advantage is that you can then hardwire rootvp to that filesystem, and have files stuck on it to intelligently discover how to bring up the system correctly, without doing lots of magic to discover what devices are available for use, and which one you want to boot from, etc. Also, as the state is always consistant, you have no problem with stuff like depending on the validity of the contents of a file, and you don't need to fsck / seperately from the rest of the volumes. Marius To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10010251906240.54726-100000>