Re: GRUB OR LILO?
On 2011-07-04 21:18 +0200, Stephen Powell wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:38:40 -0400 (EDT), Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Alex PADOLY <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> For a server that works permanently with DEBIAN SQUEEZE,
>>> I used LILO in kernel compilation and with and scsi isa card.
>>> Why many of LINUX distribution choose GRUB?
>>> I don't know that I must choose.
>> There are a big, big stack of reasons. Once grub is installed, you can
>> edit grub.conf and don't have to "re-install" it in the boot loader,
> If it's installed in the master boot record, yes. If Grub Version 2
> is installed in a partition boot sector, I believe it reads a list of blocks,
> just as LILO does.
Only for finding the bootloader itself (the embedded core.img), not for
accessing the grub.cfg file with the configuration.
> I don't believe that this is the case with Grub Version 1.
It is; the difference is that Grub2 embeds much more data, typically ~25
KiB, and thus it is not safe to embed it into a partition that contains
> However, Grub Version 1 is no longer actively developed.
> And both versions of Grub use unallocated sectors to store extra
> code when they are installed in the master boot record. This can
> lead to conflicts with other programs trying to do the same thing
> or backup / restore issues. So there is a down side to this feature.
The Right Way™ to overcome these difficulties is to embed Grub into a
partition that does not contain any data. With GPT you even have a
standard for that, the BIOS Boot partition.