Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I have posted questions about needing a seperate boot partition(mount point /boot) for redhat. This is my understanding. By having a seperate partition with my boot info, it makes it eaiser for the computer to find the needed info at startup. If I just had a directory /boot on the main partition it would take longer for the computer to find needed files?
No. It doesn't matter where the boot files are stored as far as performance is concerned. The idea behind splitting the boot partition off has to do with being able to correct partition structure problems separate from the root, usr, home, var, etc partitions. And no, you don't need a separate partition, /boot can be a subdirectory off the root partition, although this isn't recommended by some people.
The idea of splitting the /boot partition off is that you don't have /boot mounted while your box is running thus (hopefully) avoiding hosing everything including the kernel in the case of a power outage or other irregular shutdown (like wife or kids).
It should only be mounted for booting - /boot!!
Originally posted by Mathieu You could. But, you can also make it read-only.
It's up to you.
By default in RedHat 9, the /boot partition is always mounted and only writable by root.
I prefer having a boot partition.
When it comes to partitions, there are many different opinions on the subject.
I would prefer to have a boot partition coz it will make the kernel more easier to find its related files then need to search high and low for its, This is my opinion, and the others maybe have the others.
I agree with Mathieu, if your question is regarding the partition, it will never come out with a green light, coz everyone have their own opinion and their own style of partition, unless you decide to follow someone's partition.
There is also a partition recovery aspect to it. Back in the old days of ext2, where a hard shutdown would take eons to fsck an ext2 file system, it was much faster to fsck a tiny /boot and tiny / partitions to get your system up and running as quickly as possible. The idea was to ignore the problems on the monstrous /home, /var, /usr, etc. because those partitions aren't required to get your system running. Once you could boot using /boot and /, you'd worry about these later.
Of course, this this information doesn't apply to a system running ext3, because the ext3 journal can be recovered in seconds, regardless of the size of the partition.
Everyone is correct in saying that there's no 'right' answer as far as partitioning schemes go. Everyone has their own opinion...
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.