Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:42:28 -0800 From: Micah <micahjon@ywave.com> To: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: grub doesn't know ufs filesystem Message-ID: <43A091C4.5010304@ywave.com> In-Reply-To: <200512141829.36933.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> References: <43A031B1.2030105@supsi.ch> <43A04A05.3060504@ywave.com> <200512141829.36933.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW wrote: > On Wednesday 14 December 2005 16:36, Micah wrote: > >>Some of the grubs that ship with Linux distros >>do not support ufs. > > > I'm curious as to why people care about this so much. There are numerous > threads about whether or not particular bootloaders support UFS. > > A bootloader needs to understand Linux filesystems to boot Linux off a logical > partition, but BSDs slices are always on primary partitions. Is there really > any advantage to going directly to /boot/loader, rather than simply chaining? I used chainloading for a while until I wanted multiple installs of FreeBSD on the same drive. Using chainloading from grub always booted the first FreeBSD regardless of which slice was specified in menu.lst. Changing it to use /boot/loader allowed me to actually have more than one FreeBSD on the same drive. Also, grub places some files on a host filesystem. It may be more convenient to have those files stored on UFS rather than FAT or EXT. Or you may have a system that consists only of multiple FreeBSD installs. In that case, if you use grub (rather than FreeBSD's manager), you'd have to make a partition solely for grub. HTH, Micah
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43A091C4.5010304>