Re:confused about initrd.gz vs. initrd.img
I, too, have a knoppix install which has an image of 2.4.22-xfs. I installed
this on ext2 partition originally, want to go over to ext3, need an initrd to
do so since the that image does not have ext3 compiled in. I made an initird
(cramfs) according to instructions in the Debian Reference but it does not
work.
A suggestion was that since my Linux partition is not the first on on the
disk, the initrd fails. Since the message I get is FAT bogus sector size 0,
his is quite plausible. A non-initrd boot has not problems with this at all.
A suggestion was that I should make a .gz image rather than the cramfs. Tried
that but the loader would not eat it. Gz is not compiled in either :-(.
Debian apparently does support cramfs, contrary to statements otherwise. The
gz attempt did not panic but was logged as an unsupported compressed type and
the boot proceeded without it. Still no ext3 journal running.
(Why would an image have xfs and no ext3? My guess is that it might just be in
the name but have not xfs partition to try out on it.) Initrd.gz vs
initrd.img? These are also just names. I can make a gz and call it img and
visa-versa. The lilo should call for your file name.
Reply to: