mkinitrd or static?

Daedra · 02-05-2007, 10:18 PM

I have always compiled my own kernels with the file system and scsi controller as static because as you know unless you load a initrd you cant load the modules before the boot process which results in a kernel panic. I know how to make a initrd but have always wondered is there any benefit using one or is either way the same.

Thanks

H_TeXMeX_H · 02-05-2007, 10:44 PM

Good question. I prefer the static method ... but initrd should work just fine.

Alien_Hominid · 02-06-2007, 01:00 AM

Initrd is usable when you forget smth to compile into the kernel, or for some reason you don't want to recompile your kernel (like you have new version of gcc and don't want to reinstall nvidia) and get new piece of hardware which is required during boot.

I always try to make it static because it, I believe, is the proper way.

rkrishna · 02-06-2007, 01:19 AM

filesystem support compiled in. i didnt used initrd till i started using bootsplash. i think it is better to make it built in

GrapefruiTgirl · 02-06-2007, 05:10 PM

Thanks for the question and replies - I had wondered about initrd myself; I've been compiling in compatibility for it, but never use it. I think I like the kernel in one piece

onebuck · 02-07-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daedra

I have always compiled my own kernels with the file system and scsi controller as static because as you know unless you load a initrd you cant load the modules before the boot process which results in a kernel panic. I know how to make a initrd but have always wondered is there any benefit using one or is either way the same.

Thanks

Hi,

The initrd will allow you to move from one system to another without worry of a compile. You could create your initrd on the target system and have the system running a lot faster than compiling for that system.

The boot process will not be that much of a difference. Most of my bench systems use static but when doing test systems then initrd.