Re: [9fans] changes in 9load

[Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>]

On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 01:35:17PM -0400, Russ Cox wrote:
>
> What would a rw /boot mean?  Changing it certainly
> wouldn't change the kernel image (wherever it may
> have been picked up from), so you might as well use
> ramfs if you want an in-memory rw file system.
>
In an embedded system, for example, you could release the memory
allocated to modules you no longer need.  You'd certainly not want
that reflected in the permanent storage image, but it could make
a significant difference where memory is at a premium.

That's really the only purpose I could imagine.  Being able to
change data in /boot sounds like great complication with very little
gain.

++L

PS: Often the argument that memory and computing cycles are cheap
resources is raised here and elsewhere.  My take is that this is
certainly the case, but that making efficient use of resources is
a better investment than relying on low cost.  The difference
becomes significant when utilisation soares and the inefficiencies
bring a system to its knees.  IMHO reliance on low cost leads to
environmental waste, specially in an economic sense.

Not that I don't understand the danger of premature optimisation
:-)