Rootfs versus kernel confusion
I know that they are two different entities. Rootfs is a file system which describes how to store and access data. The kernel is actual code which executes.
However, isn't the kernel code stored inside the Rootfs?
Why is it then, that they are stored on different partitions in flash for example? I always see the partitioning layout of an emmc device in an embedded system for example with one partition for the kernel and another for the Rootfs. This confuses me.
kernel partition embedded root-filesystem flash-memory
asked 10 mins ago
Engineer999Engineer999
1166
add a comment |
I know that they are two different entities. Rootfs is a file system which describes how to store and access data. The kernel is actual code which executes.
However, isn't the kernel code stored inside the Rootfs?
Why is it then, that they are stored on different partitions in flash for example? I always see the partitioning layout of an emmc device in an embedded system for example with one partition for the kernel and another for the Rootfs. This confuses me.
kernel partition embedded root-filesystem flash-memory
asked 10 mins ago
Engineer999Engineer999
1166
add a comment |
I know that they are two different entities. Rootfs is a file system which describes how to store and access data. The kernel is actual code which executes.
However, isn't the kernel code stored inside the Rootfs?
Why is it then, that they are stored on different partitions in flash for example? I always see the partitioning layout of an emmc device in an embedded system for example with one partition for the kernel and another for the Rootfs. This confuses me.
kernel partition embedded root-filesystem flash-memory
asked 10 mins ago
Engineer999Engineer999
1166
I know that they are two different entities. Rootfs is a file system which describes how to store and access data. The kernel is actual code which executes.
However, isn't the kernel code stored inside the Rootfs?
Why is it then, that they are stored on different partitions in flash for example? I always see the partitioning layout of an emmc device in an embedded system for example with one partition for the kernel and another for the Rootfs. This confuses me.
kernel partition embedded root-filesystem flash-memory
kernel partition embedded root-filesystem flash-memory
asked 10 mins ago
Engineer999Engineer999
1166
asked 10 mins ago
Engineer999Engineer999
1166
asked 10 mins ago
Engineer999Engineer999
1166
asked 10 mins ago
Engineer999Engineer999
1166
asked 10 mins ago
Engineer999Engineer999
1166
1166
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Older boot loaders could only mount primitive file systems so the kernel was kept on boot and the OS on root. One way of preventing some types of failures due to a full file system is to give each thing it's on file system. Another convenience of multiple partitions is one can easley backup and restore them individually.
The problem with these ideas is that updating the kernel can fail if the boot volume becomes full when there is plenty of other space available. Some file systems like is ZFS, BTRFS, LVM? are not supported by bootloaders.
So it's up to the OS distribution to decide what trade-offs to make.
answered just now
user1133275user1133275
2,854519
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f493098%2frootfs-versus-kernel-confusion%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Older boot loaders could only mount primitive file systems so the kernel was kept on boot and the OS on root. One way of preventing some types of failures due to a full file system is to give each thing it's on file system. Another convenience of multiple partitions is one can easley backup and restore them individually.
The problem with these ideas is that updating the kernel can fail if the boot volume becomes full when there is plenty of other space available. Some file systems like is ZFS, BTRFS, LVM? are not supported by bootloaders.
So it's up to the OS distribution to decide what trade-offs to make.
answered just now
user1133275user1133275
2,854519
add a comment |
Older boot loaders could only mount primitive file systems so the kernel was kept on boot and the OS on root. One way of preventing some types of failures due to a full file system is to give each thing it's on file system. Another convenience of multiple partitions is one can easley backup and restore them individually.
The problem with these ideas is that updating the kernel can fail if the boot volume becomes full when there is plenty of other space available. Some file systems like is ZFS, BTRFS, LVM? are not supported by bootloaders.
So it's up to the OS distribution to decide what trade-offs to make.
answered just now
user1133275user1133275
2,854519
add a comment |
Older boot loaders could only mount primitive file systems so the kernel was kept on boot and the OS on root. One way of preventing some types of failures due to a full file system is to give each thing it's on file system. Another convenience of multiple partitions is one can easley backup and restore them individually.
The problem with these ideas is that updating the kernel can fail if the boot volume becomes full when there is plenty of other space available. Some file systems like is ZFS, BTRFS, LVM? are not supported by bootloaders.
So it's up to the OS distribution to decide what trade-offs to make.
answered just now
user1133275user1133275
2,854519
Older boot loaders could only mount primitive file systems so the kernel was kept on boot and the OS on root. One way of preventing some types of failures due to a full file system is to give each thing it's on file system. Another convenience of multiple partitions is one can easley backup and restore them individually.
The problem with these ideas is that updating the kernel can fail if the boot volume becomes full when there is plenty of other space available. Some file systems like is ZFS, BTRFS, LVM? are not supported by bootloaders.
So it's up to the OS distribution to decide what trade-offs to make.
answered just now
user1133275user1133275
2,854519
answered just now
user1133275user1133275
2,854519
answered just now
user1133275user1133275
2,854519
answered just now
user1133275user1133275
2,854519
2,854519
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f493098%2frootfs-versus-kernel-confusion%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
