Do you need /boot partition mounted?

veggie2u

I have been running Gentoo for quite a while now, and it used to suggest in the Handbook to not have boot auto mounted (noauto in fstab), and that is what I do.

My systems run, so it must be ok, but when I mentioned in a forum on arstechnica.com here someone suggested that linux wouldn't run correctly without a /boot, and specificly mentioned that System.map needs to be available to the logger, and it should be in boot. So, I thought I would pose to Gentoo folks about what this may be about.

veggie2u
_________________
http://www.cyberward.net
http://www.annieandchris.net

AllTom · Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:03 pm Post subject:

I generally do not run my computers with boot mounted, although I haven't used Gentoo in a while. When I did use Gentoo full-time, I only ever mounted /boot when installing a new kernel. (Note most kernel installation instructions tell you to "mount /boot; cp kernel /boot/; umount /boot".)
_________________
rtylershaw: "My computer doesn't even work and I love this distro. Weird."

frippz · Guru Joined: 22 Aug 2002 Posts: 460 Location: Sweden

The /boot partition is accessed during the boot-up process. But after that, it isn't needed anymore. Save for putting new kernel onto it or configuring GRUB.

veggie2u · Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:10 pm Post subject:

I agree. Maybe this should then be called, what is the System.map file used for?
_________________
http://www.cyberward.net
http://www.annieandchris.net

chunderbunny · Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:28 pm Post subject:

I have no idea what System.map is for. I don't bother copying it to /boot anymore and everything still seems to work fine.

veggie2u · Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:59 pm Post subject:

Ok, I found something here.

chunderbunny · Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:22 pm Post subject:

Besides, almost every gentoo user will have a System.map available at /usr/src/linux as we all compile our own kernels.

mikegpitt · Advocate Joined: 22 May 2004 Posts: 3224

I personally leave /boot unmounted, unless I need to change something in it. Leaving it mounted really won't cause any problems, but I think most people leave it unmounted for system imntegrety reasons (ie. no files can get screwed up in /boot if it's unmounted).

rhill · Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:30 am Post subject:

my /boot remained unmounted until i installed hal and his buddies, which seem to think it should be mounted. i don't notice a difference either way, except a reduction in mysterious-kernel-disappearance syndrome.
_________________
by design, by neglect
for a fact or just for effect

Mayhem · Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:14 am Post subject:

I've used gentoo on ppc for a while. It said in the docs that you shouldn't use a seperate /boot partition on that arch. Anyone know why?
I only have x86 hardware atm so it's just curiosity.
_________________
I laugh in the face of danger... Then i hide until it goes away.

mikegpitt · Advocate Joined: 22 May 2004 Posts: 3224

Sven Vermeulen · Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:45 pm Post subject:

Since you copy over your System.map, there still is a System.map available in /usr/src/linux.

There is no absolute truth to the advantage/disadvantage of having /boot mounted or not. Some say it's more secure (less chance on screwing your kernels), others say that screwing your / will make your system as unbootable as screwing with the kernel.

In my opinion, everything that isn't needed during regular system operation shouldn't be available. Mine is unmounted and, next to the kernel, also contains the configuration file (backup), partition table backup and some other small thingies that I rather have available on /boot (although they're also on a separate machine and backed up).

Others like to keep /boot mounted so they can immediately edit their bootconfig or put up a new kernel. It's all up to you to decide. The handbook doesn't recommend placing noauto, it states that some people like to have it not mounted automatically and informs you how to do the same.