Re: Why should "/boot" be on a separate partition?
The only good reason I have ever seen for this is as a work around for
broken bioses that are limited in how far into the disk they can see
in order to read the boot blocks. A small partition near the front of
the drive ensures that any blocks allocated to the boot file are
reachable - and once the kernel is in memory you are using more capable
Unix/Linux drivers which are unrestricted and hence can access the root
partition wherever it lies..
I have heard some people try to justify it on security/safety grounds - ie
if your boot file is normally unmounted or mounted read-only, you are less
likely to damage it. But boot files are easily recreated so I see no reason
to be overly anal about such things. I am much more concerned about being
cautious with configuration files and user files.
Personally I prefer to keep a small root filesystem which can be backed up
regularly, with separate partitions for /usr, /home, /var etc. I see no
need to a separate /boot partition under this scenario, and it was certainly
not standard practice on traditional Unix systems.
Assuming you are going to have a separate root for Ubuntu and Debian, there
doesn't seem to be any reason to keep the boot files together - but it can
be done if you really want to.
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 07:38:35PM +0530, Masatran (Deepak), R. wrote:
> Why should "/boot" be on a separate partition (rather than on the "/"
> I have installed Debian 3.1 with a separate "/boot" partition. I intend
> installing Ubuntu 5.10 . Should I share the "/boot" partition between Debian
> and Ubuntu?
Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com