FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-18-2008, 05:07 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Silly question, why still stage1 separate from stage2?

So I have a silly question, and it's ok to tell me I'm dumb, but I was
thinking this morning, why do we still have stage1 vs stage2? Stage1
is pretty much about getting you stage2, or minstage2 right? And in
most cases where you're not booting from media, you're stuffing one of
those two into ram right? So why can't they be combined and just be
one stage?

Here's my thought.

The initrd we load from pxe or from media could be stage2, or
minstage2. User choice at boot time (yes we'd lose autodiscovery of
the lowmem case, but really?). PXE seems to handle this and yes you'd
be downloading more content over the DOS networking stack instead of
the Linux networking stack, but is that so terrible that we have to do
really dirty things with stage1?

So let me know cases where you think a split stage1 vs (min)stage2 are
really needed. I'd like to know!

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 01-18-2008, 05:16 PM
Jeremy Katz
 
Default Silly question, why still stage1 separate from stage2?

On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 13:07 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> So I have a silly question, and it's ok to tell me I'm dumb, but I was
> thinking this morning, why do we still have stage1 vs stage2? Stage1
> is pretty much about getting you stage2, or minstage2 right? And in
> most cases where you're not booting from media, you're stuffing one of
> those two into ram right? So why can't they be combined and just be
> one stage?

You don't have the second stage in RAM for NFS installs either. Or
booting from the to-be-renamed-rescuecd. And being able to have the
second stage _not_ in ram is a pretty big win as the second stage
continues to grow with things like fonts, translations, etc.

If we were to go to a single stage, we'd need to go on a very serious culling
spree or we'd have a substantial hit on our memory requirements.

Jeremy

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 01-18-2008, 06:09 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Silly question, why still stage1 separate from stage2?

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:16:41 -0500
Jeremy Katz <katzj@redhat.com> wrote:

> You don't have the second stage in RAM for NFS installs either. Or
> booting from the to-be-renamed-rescuecd. And being able to have the
> second stage _not_ in ram is a pretty big win as the second stage
> continues to grow with things like fonts, translations, etc.


Ok, yeah, I misthought how it was being used when booting media.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 01-18-2008, 09:04 PM
John Summerfield
 
Default Silly question, why still stage1 separate from stage2?

Jesse Keating wrote:

So I have a silly question, and it's ok to tell me I'm dumb, but I was

We don't need to:-)


thinking this morning, why do we still have stage1 vs stage2? Stage1
is pretty much about getting you stage2, or minstage2 right? And in
most cases where you're not booting from media, you're stuffing one of
those two into ram right? So why can't they be combined and just be
one stage?

Here's my thought.

The initrd we load from pxe or from media could be stage2, or


Aren't we in 8086 mode in PXE?
How much RAM can we use?
How big is stage2?
What execution model does Linux expect to start in?
What about other platforms?




minstage2. User choice at boot time (yes we'd lose autodiscovery of
the lowmem case, but really?). PXE seems to handle this and yes you'd
be downloading more content over the DOS networking stack instead of
the Linux networking stack, but is that so terrible that we have to do
really dirty things with stage1?

So let me know cases where you think a split stage1 vs (min)stage2 are
really needed. I'd like to know!





--

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 01-19-2008, 01:50 AM
Matthew Miller
 
Default Silly question, why still stage1 separate from stage2?

On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 01:07:34PM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> So I have a silly question, and it's ok to tell me I'm dumb, but I was

For the record, I asked about this at FUDCon a couple of years ago and
Jeremy told me I'm dumb.



--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:40 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org