(WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader???

[kain]

hey everyone I4m new to this forum and to Linux generally speaking

just got myself a netbook & I wanna do some experimenting with Linux. I plan to have multi-boot on my netbook, starting with a dual boot windows XP + Linux (debian or a variant like ubuntu, I hesitate but w/e that ain't important atm)



the Linux part of my netbook will be for educational purposes only (I wanna learn Linux. command-line stuff, no fancy graphics). for surfing & all that when I'm on the go, I'll use the Windows part



I'v already decided what partitions to have (the linux ones like / /boot /home /usr swap & all that will be all in the extended partition, to keep it organized 8) windows xp will have its own primary partition. another primary partition will be for either backup, or for extra Linux distros, and the remaining primary partition, well that's kinda the subject of my topic so for the moment I dunno )


but I'm kinda new to these concepts like MBR, bootloader, boot sector & all that & it's all mucho confusing




so I been doing some searching & one of the things that often turns up when it comes to multi-boot is having a "dedicated partition for the bootloader" for "chainloading" & all that


so...if I understood correctly (duh) a separate partition for bootloader like Lilo and Grub means that the menu (with all the OSes installed) will be on that partition, but not their kernels right ?
also the bootloader on that partition is supposed to be OS-independent which is good 'cause that means that whenever I add a new OS all I have to do is edit a config file in that partition & simply add a line for that new OS, right?



but my question is, why waste a whole partition just for that ? (primary partitions are only 4 max, which means they're very very precious)


I mean why not put Lilo or Grub or whatever in the MBR, along with the menu of all the OSes, since the MBR is also OS-independent ? this way whenever I add a new OS (without overwriting MBR) all u have to do is edit the MBR and add a line in the menu for the new OS, plain simple

so...basically the MBR is kinda like a "dedicated bootloader partition" all by itself. so why an extra partition ? sounds redundant IMO

[dibl]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

There is a fairly short list of reasons to use a separate partition for /boot, and none of them appear in your description of your planned setup.

To recap:

- if your BIOS doesn't recognize your PCI-e bus SSD as a bootable device (like mine)
- if you need to run the OS on a JFS, XFS, BTRFS or other "exotic" filesystem (not recommended)
- probably a couple more that I can't think of ATM

So, don't worry about it. If you are going to keep your user data in /home on its own partition, then you will be fine putting the rest of the OS on a 8GB ext4 partition. You can make a swap partition the same size as your installed memory, if you want to be able to suspend to disk/hibernate.

[ardvark71]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

Hi...

Welcome

But why the warning? That's what we're here for!

Regards...

[kain]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

yo ardvark thx for the welcome 8)

"newbie warning" is just so u guys wont be surprised if I ask stoopid questions

There is a fairly short list of reasons to use a separate partition for /boot, and none of them appear in your description of your planned setup.

To recap:

- if your BIOS doesn't recognize your PCI-e bus SSD as a bootable device (like mine)
- if you need to run the OS on a JFS, XFS, BTRFS or other "exotic" filesystem (not recommended)
- probably a couple more that I can't think of ATM

So, don't worry about it. If you are going to keep your user data in /home on its own partition, then you will be fine putting the rest of the OS on a 8GB ext4 partition. You can make a swap partition the same size as your installed memory, if you want to be able to suspend to disk/hibernate.

yeah but all the partitions is only for experimenting, wanna see how it all works once it's setup. so the more complex it is the more I learn

I'm not gonna use Linux for "useful" stuff (too complicated atm. especially if I use Debian, since surfing & email & stuff like that is impossible with text-based distros anyway)


btw I've heard separate /boot is good cause if you have a separate partition for all the kernels then you can still boot & try fix things if something goes wrong with the rest of linux, or something like that...



anyway...main question is about the separate Grub/LILO partition, what's the point in having one ?

[dibl]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

The primary motivation for a separate /boot partition, on a system with multiple operating systems, goes back to the days when saving a few megabytes of hard disk space was worth something. With a single /boot partition on a system, you could install the kernel images for each OS in the one partition, and then only the OS-specific filesystem needed to go on its own partition, and you had fewer total partitions on the hard drive(s), which results in less "spare" partition space in the aggregate.

As far as playing with multiple distributions installed on your computer, the main thing you need to remember is that the boot menu can be controlled by one and only one Grub (grub-pc). And, in the installation sequence, "last Grub wins" is the rule, unless you take care to install the later Grub files to the root filesystem, and not the mbr, of the disk partition where the OS is installed. So, plan accordingly -- the default setup for most distributions is to point Grub to the MBR, and if you don't mean for that to happen, you will need to intervene and select "partition" or "root filesystem".

LILO is ancient history, as far as the popular Linux distributions like Ubuntu and Debian and Fedora -- I don't know why you would consider using it. Grub 2, aka grub-pc is the current state of the Linux-booting art.

Also, you'll need this: http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...opic=3106368.0

[kain]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

iirc the separate /boot thing was in an article I saw about a single OS system (like, only Linux installed) yet it still said a separate /boot is more practical if #&%$ happens



btw I didn't know some bootloaders are more "state o the art" than others
I mean bootloaders are suppose to be just tiny simple things that dont do anything except load bigger complex things right ?

As far as playing with multiple distributions installed on your computer, the main thing you need to remember is that the boot menu can be controlled by one and only one Grub (grub-pc). And, in the installation sequence, "last Grub wins" is the rule, unless you take care to install the later Grub files to the root filesystem, and not the mbr, of the disk partition where the OS is installed. So, plan accordingly -- the default setup for most distributions is to point Grub to the MBR, and if you don't mean for that to happen, you will need to intervene and select "partition" or "root filesystem".

cool so u mean I dont need a separate Grub partition then ? 8)

I can just put Grub & the main menu in the MBR, then also put Grub in each OS partition ?

[oshunluvr]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

Lot of info here, but back to your OP:

The bootloader doesn't reside in a partition, it resides in the Master Boot Record. The bootloader requires some files that are kept in /boot/grub. The /boot partition also holds the kernel required and initial ram disk require to start linux.

Unless your are using a disk format (RAID0 for example) or a filesystem not supported by grub-pc you do not need to have /boot on it's own partition.

Unless you have some sort of exotic set up it is not recommended to have anything other than /home on a separate partition. One possible exception to this is having /tmp separate can be beneficial for reducing overall disk usage on multiple-boot setups with many bootable linux OS's.

One issue you may run into is during your installs of multiple versions of linux, each will want to install grub-pc or grub-legacy and over-write the previous install. This can be problematic if you decide to remove the install that your current bootloader was installed from, thus removing the files required to begin the boot.

The solutions to this problem include;
1. Installing a controlling or primary linux OS and grub, then preventing all subsiquent installs from installing a bootloader (or having them install their bootloader to a partition rather than the MBR).

2. Having a stand-alone grub-pc (or legacy) install that is not overwritten by installers.

3. Using a separate /boot partition for each install and not removing it if you remove an install.

[kain]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

2. Having a stand-alone grub-pc (or legacy) install that is not overwritten by installers.

not I sure I got this one : is that what they mean by separate grub partition ?

but if so thats my question, why even waste a partition ? why not just use the MBR as the place for stand-alone grub, then stop later installs from overwriting MBR ?





also (separate question I guess) how come so many Linux g33ks out there always advice separate partition for :

/var ?

/usr ?

/usr/local ? (and why separate /usr & /usr/local ? latter is just a subfolder of former, so if former has its partition then why put the latter in yet another partition ?)

they also recommend one for /tmp but you already addressed that



since I'm new to Linux I jus wanna know how this **** all works. I reckon there HAS to be a reason why those SAME folders come up every time Linux folks talk about separate partitions...so Im guessing those folders are kinda special & I wanna know why

[vinnywright]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

well first lets just say that for the average user all that extra partitioning for separate /boot ,/var , /usr, and what not is just confusing and unnecessary .

with /home being the exception.

I would if I were you just stick to 3 / /home and swap

that sead lets say you were going to run a web server like apache ....then you may want /var on a separate partition as it serves from /var/www.

you see if your / or /home fills up it can lock things up and so say your /var/www fils up if it,s in it's own partition it wont lock the system.

the same is true of the rest.........but for the average user all that is not a concern with the exeption of /home.........if you have a /home partition and something goes rong on a upgrade or an install and / gets hosed you can reinstall your system and not format /home and all your personal files will be intact

VINNY

[kain]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

well first lets just say that for the average user all that extra partitioning for separate /boot ,/var , /usr, and what not is just confusing and unnecessary .

but Im not average Im new to Linux, I dont even know what all these folders are for (cept /home & swap maybe) so I wanna make my setup intricate so that I learn more


ok so /var is for server stuff...but what about /usr and /usr/local are they important folders ? and why do so many ppl put them on seperate partitions ?




btw what filesystem do u recommend ? (I figure Id use ext4 cause it's new & sounds cool but there's so any file systems so I dunno...)

[vinnywright]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

so I wanna make my setup intricate so that I learn more

open your package manager and install rutbook and read read read it's a gziped pdf book of the things you nead to know.

/var is allso where most of your loges are as well

/usr is a place whare .......user stuff is kept (have a look) like programs the user installs where as system programs are in /bin

I would stick with ext4 or ext3

VINNY

[dibl]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

I wanna make my setup intricate so that I learn more

You don't need to seek out special techniques to make your setup more intricate than it will naturally be -- a default installation as vinny has suggested will give you years of study material.

However, this may answer some of your questions: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/

Personally, in recent years I have installed the entire OS, including /home, into a single partition of 12GB - 20GB size. That gives plenty of space for the occasional ISO download. Then I symlink my actual data in to my home folder, from other partitions where I keep it, and set those partitions to be mounted in /etc/fstab. The main benefit I see in doing it this way, versus mounting a partition on /home, is that all the user packages like to write little dot files all over your /home folder, and those can be a problem if you need to reinstall a package, or even reinstall the OS. So I keep 'em out of my data.

I don't know where you are learning that "so many people" use multiple separate partitions -- that was the 1999 recommendation, for 2GB hard drives.

EDIT: here's an HTML version of the FHS: http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem...Hierarchy.html

[rfakhrai]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

but Im not average Im new to Linux

I think in vinny's assessment of things, people new to linux are contained in the "average user" group. Things aren't going to get very much more complicated if you make separate partitions for all these things. Rather, they'll mount just like anything else and you'll just have an unnecessarily-complicated fstab and partition table.

Since this is a netbook and it sounds like you don't actually want to get anything out of linux's functionality (safer web browsing, for one) except for learning command line thingies, start with the basics and dual-install linux (in ext4) alongside windows. I'm sure that will pose enough of a challenge to keep you entertained for now. AND make sure you have a backup of your windows install before doing all of this; the MBR will be rewritten and windows will most likely not be happy.

[kain]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

Personally, in recent years I have installed the entire OS, including /home, into a single partition of 12GB - 20GB size. That gives plenty of space for the occasional ISO download. Then I symlink my actual data in to my home folder, from other partitions where I keep it, and set those partitions to be mounted in /etc/fstab. The main benefit I see in doing it this way, versus mounting a partition on /home, is that all the user packages like to write little dot files all over your /home folder, and those can be a problem if you need to reinstall a package, or even reinstall the OS. So I keep 'em out of my data.

symlinking !!! I wanna learn that too...and I dont understand what exactly u said

basicaly u saying that your /home aint a real folder but only a shortcut to another partition ?

I don't know where you are learning that "so many people" use multiple separate partitions -- that was the 1999 recommendation, for 2GB hard drives.

no even for recent drives, like here :
http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Linux...partition.html
but that links too technical for me atm, their not really clear

I think in vinny's assessment of things, people new to linux are contained in the "average user" group. Things aren't going to get very much more complicated if you make separate partitions for all these things. Rather, they'll mount just like anything else and you'll just have an unnecessarily-complicated fstab and partition table.

fstab...I've heard of that file but dunno how the hell that works...I gonna have to tinker with that too to find out

[dibl]

Re: (WARNING Linux newbie here) WHY a separate partition for bootloader

symlinking !!! I wanna learn that too...and I dont understand what exactly u said

basicaly u saying that your /home aint a real folder but only a shortcut to another partition ?

Close. /home is a directory in the Linux filesystem, under "/". I'm saying I don't mount a separate partition on /home, I install the entire filesystem on a single partition. Then, in my user's home directory, aka "folder", I link in my data from other partitions on the computer. "symlink" is like your Windows "shortcut" -- it is a logical link that tells the system where something is. Here's a screenshot:

[img width=400 height=282]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7382/homefolder.png[/img]

If you look at it, you can see that some of the folder names are italicized. That is how the system tells you those are symlinks, not real folders. The real data is located on another partition or another hard drive. But when I click the symlink, it opens and shows me my data, and I can copy and paste, etc., just as if it were really there within my user folder.

In Dolphin, if you split the window, you can drag and drop a file or a folder from one side to the other. When you drop it, it pops up a "service menu", and lets you choose "Move here", "Copy here", or "Link here". So, after I install my OS, and edit /etc/fstab to enable automatic mounting of all my data partitions, then I use Dolphin to link in my data to my home folder.

You can learn about editing /etc/fstab in #15 in the FAQs in my signature.