Re: initrd and NFS

Matthias Urlichs (smurf@work.smurf.noris.de)
20 May 1997 23:42:48 +0200

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Matthias Urlichs: "Re: general protection faults with 2.0.30 and filehandle patch"
Previous message: David A. Gatwood: "Load Averages ridiculously high in 2.1.36"
Maybe in reply to: Jon Peatfield: "initrd and NFS"
Next in thread: Peter Benie: "Re: initrd and NFS"

Werner Almesberger <almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch> writes:
>
> Are there any other problems initrd users have experienced ?
>
I always wondered why the initial disk needs to be a _RAM_ disk?

And yes, I concur that the switch should go to a mounted directory (which
may or may not be an actual mount point), not to a device.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs         \  noris network GmbH  /  Xlink-POP Nürnberg 
Schleiermacherstraße 12   \   Linux+Internet   /   EMail: urlichs@noris.de
90491 Nürnberg (Germany)   \    Consulting+Programming+Networking+etc'ing
   PGP: 1024/4F578875   1B 89 E2 1C 43 EA 80 44  15 D2 29 CF C6 C7 E0 DE
       Click <A HREF="http://info.noris.de/~smurf/finger">here</A>.    42

Next message: Matthias Urlichs: "Re: general protection faults with 2.0.30 and filehandle patch"
Previous message: David A. Gatwood: "Load Averages ridiculously high in 2.1.36"
Maybe in reply to: Jon Peatfield: "initrd and NFS"
Next in thread: Peter Benie: "Re: initrd and NFS"