HD Install :: Loader questions



Hello,

I'm trying to hop on the Linux train, but it's going just a bit to fast.  It's just a bit over my head.

I'm able to boot DSL from the floppies and CD.  It ran well, so I wiped the HD and made partitions, one Linux swap (boot) and Linux.  Then, after a day or so trying to figure out what I was typing, I got DSL on the HD, and installed Lilo.

Question:
Is Lilo, GRUB, or other boot loaders required to boot Linux?  As this is the only OS on the system, I'd like it to be as lean as possible.  Is Lilo, and others, like a boot.ini kinda thing?

On smaller HD's, are two partitions still required?  Is the OS partition so the OS can be wiped, without deleting the 'data'?

I've found a lot of information regarding dual booting, but I haven't found as much information regarding a single OS system install.


Thanks for the hard work.
Quote
Is Lilo, GRUB, or other boot loaders required to boot Linux?
No. 2.4 kernels can boot itself, but bootloaders were designed to give more options, which you cannot give if booting straightly..

Yes, it's a boot.ini kinda thingy, combined with the loader part in MBR..

Swap cannot be the same as boot.. Which one is it?
Swap is used when you run out of memory, like 386.swp (hidden swap file in windows)..
It's usually on it's own partition for better performance than a swap file, but file approach is ok too..
Quote (curaga @ May 18 2007,13:03)
Yes, it's a boot.ini kinda thingy, combined with the loader part in MBR..

Ah, Riiiight.  I get it.
Don't need it, but without it you can't have the OS load with 'cheat codes' and other such goodies.

Quote
Swap cannot be the same as boot.. Which one is it?
Swap is used when you run out of memory, like 386.swp (hidden swap file in windows)..
It's usually on it's own partition for better performance than a swap file, but file approach is ok too..

Ummm...  The swap partition can't be, or shouldn't be, the boot partition?  Currently, I have 256m boot/swap (hda1), and the remainder (hda2) with Linux FS.  Are you saying linux will disregard the swap flag on hda1?

I guess the problem I have is understanding how to use the small HD space as efficiently as the compressed OS size.  I'm of the undersatnding that you loose drive space every time you make a partition.  Further, if you make a partition only for the swap, but the swap is not used to the capacity of the partition, you loose the use of space there, too. If we want a HD install (not frugel), but want to be frugel with regard to HD usage, what's the best way to approach it?


I know these are theroy questions, but I'm trying to understand the whys, and whatfores. I hope it acceptable to pose these questions here.

Thanks, curaga, I'm learning a lot.
First, swap partitions shouldn't be toggled bootable. You should set your root (/) partition as bootable. Your swap will be turned on at boot whether it's toggled bootable or not. What could you possibly boot from your swap partition?

Quote
I guess the problem I have is understanding how to use the small HD space as efficiently as the compressed OS size.  I'm of the undersatnding that you loose drive space every time you make a partition.  Further, if you make a partition only for the swap, but the swap is not used to the capacity of the partition, you loose the use of space there, too. If we want a HD install (not frugel), but want to be frugel with regard to HD usage, what's the best way to approach it?

If you want to install as efficiently as the ISO, install the ISO (frugal install). That's 50MB as opposed to 200MB uncompressed. Then you get the rest of your harddrive for your own stuff (so make a third partition for persistent /home, etc.). You don't lose anything in a frugal install -- it's just installing the compressed ISO versus decompressing it in a normal Debian-type single partition layout.

Swap isn't wasted space. I wouldn't worry that it's not being used all the time -- that's a good thing.

I'm also not sure what concerns you about "losing space" by adding additional partitions. What's a few inodes out of multi-GB hard drives anyway -- kb versus GB? That's too trivial to worry about.

original here.