[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Updating kernels impossible when /boot is getting full



On Sun, Aug 01, 2021 at 12:45:27PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> On 7/31/21 9:20 PM, Ilkka Huotari wrote:
> > -rw-r--r--  1 root root 153M heinä  10 14:22 initrd.img-5.11.0-22-generic
> > -rw-r--r--  1 root root 151M heinä  23 13:13 initrd.img-5.11.0-25-generic

> A 500 GB boot partition would be enough for several kernels, etc., on Debian
> 10 amd64.

(which they're not running)

> Please post (where /dev/sdX is your system device):
> 
>     # fdisk -l /dev/sdX
> 
>     # du -msx /boot /
> 
>     # ls -l /boot

What's the point?  We know the issue is they've got two or more
gigantic initrd files.  The question is why their initrd files are 5 times
as big as normal.

unicorn:~$ ls -l /boot/initrd.img-*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 30924690 Jan 29  2021 /boot/initrd.img-4.19.0-13-amd64
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 34310935 Jul 21 07:30 /boot/initrd.img-5.10.0-7-amd64
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 34313404 Jul 31 09:05 /boot/initrd.img-5.10.0-8-amd64

We get these threads too damned often.  Someone who knows what makes
initrd images swell up, please step in and advise.  And no, it's not
"try using a different compression algorithm".  It's something in the
*content*.

The only advice I can give is "open them up and see what's inside them,
and compare that to what you see in a regular Debian stable initrd file".
But that's a lot of work, and I can't imagine an Ubuntu user actually
doing that.[1]

Unfortunately, it may turn out that what makes them 5 times as big is
something unique to Ubuntu.  Perhaps they ship a hundred megabytes of
extra non-free firmware.  Who the hell knows?  Not a Debian list, that's
for sure.

[1] But just in case I'm dead wrong, here's the contents of mine, to
compare against.  Attached, compressed.  It's a large text file, but
it compresses pretty well.  Maybe the list software won't strip it.

Attachment: initrd.img-5.10.0-8-amd64.txt.gz
Description: application/gzip


Reply to: