Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #3077 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-26 13:16 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-02-13 08:12 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware
maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-26 13:16 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-26 20:22 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-26 16:02 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-26 21:02 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-27 00:36 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-27 07:08 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2016-05-27 04:03 -0800
Re: maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-27 09:25 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2016-05-27 05:53 -0800
Re: maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-27 12:48 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-27 14:50 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Vilmos Soti <vilmos@soti.ca> - 2016-05-26 12:40 -0700
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-26 22:29 +0200
LVM [was: maximum number of partitions] Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-27 07:44 -0400
Re: LVM [was: maximum number of partitions] Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-27 18:07 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-05-26 22:27 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-27 06:05 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-05-27 08:36 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-27 12:17 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-27 18:49 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2016-05-27 19:08 -0500
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-28 07:11 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2016-05-28 09:22 -0500
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-05-27 10:07 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-27 18:07 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-27 20:30 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 00:05 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-28 04:45 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 07:26 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-28 07:15 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 10:25 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-28 11:14 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 13:52 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-05-28 18:46 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 19:57 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-05-28 20:15 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2016-05-28 12:04 -0700
Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 22:47 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-05-29 07:36 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-29 13:48 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-06-04 09:50 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-05 10:10 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-05 13:53 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-06-05 16:18 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-05 18:53 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2016-06-05 17:58 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-06 14:09 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2016-06-06 10:32 -0400
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-06-06 16:48 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-06-08 22:23 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-06 15:55 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-06-06 17:41 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-06 17:23 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-06-06 22:36 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-06 21:51 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-07 04:54 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-07 08:43 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-07 19:04 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-07 20:30 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-08 07:08 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-06 15:50 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-06-05 16:03 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions noSpam@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 18:57 +0000
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-28 17:10 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-05-28 18:07 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-28 21:33 +0200
Re: maximum number of partitions novinhael@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 18:10 -0800
Re: maximum number of partitions Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2017-02-08 07:58 -0600
Re: maximum number of partitions faeychild <faeychild@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-02-13 15:23 +1100
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2017-02-13 08:04 +0100
Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2017-02-13 08:12 +0100
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 19:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nianh8$rkc$1@omega-3g.local> |
| In reply to | #3099 |
On 05/27/2016 01:49 PM, Henrik Carlqvist wrote: > LVM might be a good suggestion for some, but I still prefer separate > partitions. If you grow out of one of your partitions it is usually > rather easy to add yet another partition to some sub-directory. E g if > you grow out of space on /usr you could add another partition to > /usr/local. > > In a worst case scenario if you don't want to add another mount point you > could copy the entire contents from a smaller old partition to a newer > bigger partition and then swap their mount points. In my expereince, with > newer kernels it is even possible to successfully run partprobe even when > some partitions are mounted. That way you can grow to a bigger file > system without having to reboot. I used to think that LVM was an unneeded extra level of abstraction. Then I discovered the wonders of pvmove and how it lets me migrate a whole system to a new, larger disk drive without ever shutting down or rebooting. * Hotplug the new disk drive. * Partition it and pvcreate the new LVM PVs. * pvmove the LVM LVs to the new drive PVs. For any LV that you want to enlarge, resize the LV and its filesystem immediately after moving it, before moving the next LV. That avoids fragmenting the LV. (This will all take a while, but continue using the system as usual while it proceeds.) * pvremove the PVs on the old drive. * Unmount the /boot partition and copy it to the new drive. * Mount the new /boot partition. * Install the boot loader on the new drive, making sure to tell the installer that the new drive will be the first BIOS drive. * Use lsblk to verify that nothing still references the old drive. * Hot remove the old drive. * OK, I lied. You probably want to do a quick reboot at this point to verify that all is well, but this is the only down time in the whole procedure. -- Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "RNichols42"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 07:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nibgbu$4rh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3101 |
On Fri, 27 May 2016 19:08:08 -0500, Robert Nichols wrote: > I used to think that LVM was an unneeded extra level of abstraction. > Then I discovered the wonders of pvmove and how it lets me migrate a > whole system to a new, larger disk drive without ever shutting down or > rebooting. Yes, but those steps, do they really mean less work or more convenience than what would be the case without LVM? * Hotplug a new disk drive if a new drive is needed. * Create at least one new partition. * Put your prefered file system on the new partition. * Mount your new partition on a temporary location * cd to old path; tar -cf - . | (cd /tmp/new ; tar -xvf-) * umount temporary directory of partition * update /etc/fstab * umount old partition * mount new partition * If the partition was your boot partition, install boot loader * Hot remove any unused drive * optionally reboot to check that your new config survives a reboot. The above is when you replace a partition, it would mean even less work if you simply add a new partition to some subdirectory. regards Henrik -- The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is: hc351(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers: root@localhost postmaster@localhost
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 09:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nic9j9$vub$1@omega-3g.local> |
| In reply to | #3104 |
On 05/28/2016 02:11 AM, Henrik Carlqvist wrote: > On Fri, 27 May 2016 19:08:08 -0500, Robert Nichols wrote: >> I used to think that LVM was an unneeded extra level of abstraction. >> Then I discovered the wonders of pvmove and how it lets me migrate a >> whole system to a new, larger disk drive without ever shutting down or >> rebooting. > > Yes, but those steps, do they really mean less work or more convenience > than what would be the case without LVM? > > * Hotplug a new disk drive if a new drive is needed. > * Create at least one new partition. > * Put your prefered file system on the new partition. > * Mount your new partition on a temporary location > * cd to old path; tar -cf - . | (cd /tmp/new ; tar -xvf-) > * umount temporary directory of partition > * update /etc/fstab > * umount old partition > * mount new partition > * If the partition was your boot partition, install boot loader > * Hot remove any unused drive > * optionally reboot to check that your new config survives a reboot. That procedure requires a partition that is so unimportant that it can be umounted without disturbing operation and significant down time while the data is being copied. Otherwise, you are copying from a live filesystem, and the copy will likely not match the current state of the original. The procedure using pvmove doesn't have that problem (it uses copy-on-write mapping so that any changes do get copied to the destination), and can pick up from where it left off should a power interruption or other mishap crash the system during the process. > The above is when you replace a partition, it would mean even less work > if you simply add a new partition to some subdirectory. It's less work, but your free space is now split among several filesystems. If you do that more than a couple of times you end up with a confusing and unmaintainable mess. BTDT -- never again! Part of what I was doing when I discovered the wonders of pvmove was cleaning up a system that had been growing in exactly that manner over the years. With LVM, you can take the simple approach of just expanding an LV into new space, and if your LVM structure becomes too confusing you can then take the pvmove approach to consolidate everything into a clean arrangement and do that without having to take the system down. -- Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "RNichols42"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 10:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ni8v0o$i0n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3085 |
On Friday 27 May 2016 08:05, Henrik Carlqvist conveyed the following to
comp.os.linux.hardware...
> 2) If a partition gets a broken file system, maybe by a power outage
> you might not be able to fix it without booting from some other media
> if that partition is your / partition.
>
> For those reasons I try to keep my / partition rather small.
I try that too, but it's becoming harder and harder these days because
of all the extra stuff that needs to be supported at boot time.
Granted, much of that stuff is only needed in a few corner case
scenarios ─ e.g. BlueTooth keyboard support ─ but the udev developers
choose to provide support for that at boot time anyway, which means that
it has to be installed on the root filesystem and/or built into the
initramfs.
> Some directories like /dev, /etc, /bin and /lib has to be on the /
> partition, [...]
I know you use Slackware, Henrik, but many distributions now come with
systemd [*], and a number of those have also gone ahead with what
freedesktop.org ─ i.e. RedHat's propaganda machine ─ calls "the /usr
merge", where /bin, /lib{,64} and /sbin have been merged with their
counterparts under the /usr tree.
Any boot problems this generates are then overcome by having /usr
mounted from within an initramfs ─ generally generated by way of dracut
─ and as such, there is also no reason as to why /etc couldn't be
mounted in the same vein during early boot. Likewise for /bin,
/lib{,64) and /sbin where those have not been merged with their
counterparts under /usr.
Even /root ─ the root user's home directory ─ could be mounted that way,
or you could relocate that to /home/root instead. You would not need
that anymore for booting into single-user maintenance mode anyway,
because you can always fall back to the busybox shell in the initramfs.
/dev is already on devtmpfs anyway nowadays, so the /dev directory is
either way going to be an empty mountpoint at boot time.
By consequence, you could have a root filesystem which is completely
devoid of any files and only contains directories onto which stuff gets
mounted during the boot process. And in that case, as Richard said, LVM
may be an ideal solution, and LVM support can be built into the
initramfs.
[*] I'm not a fan of systemd and I don't use it, but systemd has in
itself exposed and/or introduced a number of problems for which
the workarounds offer interesting perspectives to non-systemd
setups as well.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 18:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ni9rcq$t74$2@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #3085 |
Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> wrote: >On Thu, 26 May 2016 22:27:21 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> But 13 partitions is ridiculous. Make just one and use LVM. > >IMHO splitting things up in different partitions is a rather good idea. >Some reasons not to have everything on your / partition: [snip] All those reasons don't invalidate the suggestion of using LVM. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <cagm1d-hos.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #3095 |
On 2016-05-27 18:07, Marc Haber wrote: > Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 26 May 2016 22:27:21 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>> But 13 partitions is ridiculous. Make just one and use LVM. >> >> IMHO splitting things up in different partitions is a rather good idea. >> Some reasons not to have everything on your / partition: > > [snip] > > All those reasons don't invalidate the suggestion of using LVM. Not when you do it for damage containment. LVM is one layer more; it can fail, resulting in bad things. With separate partitions the damage is limited to single partition(s), the rest remain intact. If not, recovery tools can harvest data because the partition spaces are contiguous (one of the most interesting features of LVM is that you can grow "partitions" using many slices, contiguous or not). -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 00:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <niagaj$ecs$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #3098 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >On 2016-05-27 18:07, Marc Haber wrote: >> Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 26 May 2016 22:27:21 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>>> But 13 partitions is ridiculous. Make just one and use LVM. >>> >>> IMHO splitting things up in different partitions is a rather good idea. >>> Some reasons not to have everything on your / partition: >> >> [snip] >> >> All those reasons don't invalidate the suggestion of using LVM. > >Not when you do it for damage containment. >LVM is one layer more; it can fail, resulting in bad things. In practice, LVM is quite reliable. > >With separate partitions the damage is limited to single partition(s), >the rest remain intact. I guess you don't know how logical drives in an MSDOS disk label extended partition work. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 04:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gadn1d-hnf.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #3100 |
On 2016-05-28 00:05, Marc Haber wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >> With separate partitions the damage is limited to single partition(s), >> the rest remain intact. > > I guess you don't know how logical drives in an MSDOS disk label > extended partition work. Actually, I do. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 07:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <niba6m$ple$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #3102 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >On 2016-05-28 00:05, Marc Haber wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >>> With separate partitions the damage is limited to single partition(s), >>> the rest remain intact. >> >> I guess you don't know how logical drives in an MSDOS disk label >> extended partition work. > >Actually, I do. Then, how do partitions 6+ survive if 5's partition sector is gone? Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 07:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nibgi9$4rh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3103 |
On Sat, 28 May 2016 07:26:46 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >>>> With separate partitions the damage is limited to single >>>> partition(s), the rest remain intact. >>> >>> I guess you don't know how logical drives in an MSDOS disk label >>> extended partition work. >> >>Actually, I do. > > Then, how do partitions 6+ survive if 5's partition sector is gone? Broken file systems is what you might get at power outage. Such problems needs to get fixed by some fsck tool. Broken partition tables are really rare. regards Henrik -- The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is: hc351(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers: root@localhost postmaster@localhost
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 10:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nibklf$j25$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #3105 |
Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> wrote: >On Sat, 28 May 2016 07:26:46 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > >>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >>>>> With separate partitions the damage is limited to single >>>>> partition(s), the rest remain intact. >>>> >>>> I guess you don't know how logical drives in an MSDOS disk label >>>> extended partition work. >>> >>>Actually, I do. >> >> Then, how do partitions 6+ survive if 5's partition sector is gone? > >Broken file systems is what you might get at power outage. Such problems >needs to get fixed by some fsck tool. Broken partition tables are really >rare. So is broken LVM metadata. I have lost at least three orders of magnitude more data to broken filesystems or bad disks than to partitioning or LVM. It's _really_ a matter of style. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 11:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nibui5$eis$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3107 |
On Sat, 28 May 2016 10:25:19 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> wrote: >>Broken file systems is what you might get at power outage. Such problems >>needs to get fixed by some fsck tool. Broken partition tables are really >>rare. > > So is broken LVM metadata. I have lost at least three orders of > magnitude more data to broken filesystems or bad disks than to > partitioning or LVM. > > It's _really_ a matter of style. Yes, but my point in defending the OP choice of having many partitions is that when you get a broken file system you will get it on a file system which was written to. If this happens to your only partition you will have a harder time to run fsck. If it happens to /tmp-partition it was not a big loss. It will most likely not happen to your big /usr-partition as there usually are no writes to that partition. regards Henrik -- The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is: hc351(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers: root@localhost postmaster@localhost
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 13:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nic0q1$f7e$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #3109 |
Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> wrote: >Yes, but my point in defending the OP choice of having many partitions is >that when you get a broken file system you will get it on a file system >which was written to. If this happens to your only partition you will >have a harder time to run fsck. If it happens to /tmp-partition it was >not a big loss. It will most likely not happen to your big /usr-partition >as there usually are no writes to that partition. Noone did contest that. Alas, systemd is moving at a fast pace to unsupporting /usr on a separate partition, and after this is finished, they're bound to continue. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 18:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nichpf$g0r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3110 |
On Saturday 28 May 2016 13:52, Marc Haber conveyed the following to
comp.os.linux.hardware...
> Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but my point in defending the OP choice of having many
>> partitions is that when you get a broken file system you will get it
>> on a file system which was written to. If this happens to your only
>> partition you will have a harder time to run fsck. If it happens to
>> /tmp-partition it was not a big loss. It will most likely not happen
>> to your big /usr-partition as there usually are no writes to that
>> partition.
>
> Noone did contest that.
>
> Alas, systemd is moving at a fast pace to unsupporting /usr on a
> separate partition, and after this is finished, they're bound to
> continue.
1. As much as Lennartus of Borg is trying to assimilate the whole
GNU/Linux landscape ─ they've even already made systemd a hard
dependency of GDM3 ─ there still are distributions which shun
systemd like the plague. Devuan is a systemd-free Debian fork
which has just released its first install images, based upon
Debian Jessie. Manjaro is a fork of Arch which comes with
Gentoo's eudev and openrc. Slackware still uses the BSD-style
init, and is also transitioning to Gentoo's eudev. Gentoo itself
supports eudev, systemd's udev with openrc, or a full systemd
system.
2. A separate /usr has always been supported, notwithstanding
the propaganda posted at freedesktop.org. However, if one
wishes to use a separate /usr filesystem, then it is advisable
to boot with an initramfs which mounts /usr early on in the
boot process. Dracut has been around for many years already
and can take care of setting up the initramfs to that end.
3. Even though Poettering and Sievers first declared a separate
/usr as broken, they then later on introduced the /usr merge
─ i.e. merging /bin, /lib{,64} and /sbin with their counter-
parts under /usr ─ in order to have a self-contained system
partition which can be mounted read-only and exported over
the network, so they have effectively doubled back on their
earlier statement that a separate /usr is broken.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 19:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nicm5e$1c9$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #3114 |
Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: > 1. As much as Lennartus of Borg is trying to assimilate the whole > GNU/Linux landscape ? You won't make any friends by grepping your news spool and dumping off your boilerplate texts. -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 20:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nicn1c$b3l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3116 |
On Saturday 28 May 2016 19:57, Marc Haber conveyed the following to
comp.os.linux.hardware...
> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 1. As much as Lennartus of Borg is trying to assimilate the whole
>> GNU/Linux landscape ?
>
> You won't make any friends by grepping your news spool and dumping off
> your boilerplate texts.
That was no boilerplate text. As much as it may surprise anyone in this
day and age, I'm still capable of thinking for myself, and what I wrote
is exactly how I feel about Lennart Poettering and his pet project.
As for whether my opinion will make me any friends or not is not my
concern. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant to hear, and whether Lennart
and Kay like me or not is the least of all my worries ─ believe me.
They don't even know that I exist, and that suits me just fine.
There are many more serious things in life than the bloated egos of a
couple of RedHat developers. Or than RedHat's corporate ambitions, for
that matter.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nicpsl$k9f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3117 |
On 05/28/2016 11:15 AM, Aragorn wrote: > On Saturday 28 May 2016 19:57, Marc Haber conveyed the following to > comp.os.linux.hardware... > >> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: >> >>> 1. As much as Lennartus of Borg is trying to assimilate the whole >>> GNU/Linux landscape ? >> >> You won't make any friends by grepping your news spool and dumping off >> your boilerplate texts. > > That was no boilerplate text. As much as it may surprise anyone in this > day and age, I'm still capable of thinking for myself, and what I wrote > is exactly how I feel about Lennart Poettering and his pet project. > > As for whether my opinion will make me any friends or not is not my > concern. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant to hear, and whether Lennart > and Kay like me or not is the least of all my worries ─ believe me. > They don't even know that I exist, and that suits me just fine. > > There are many more serious things in life than the bloated egos of a > couple of RedHat developers. Or than RedHat's corporate ambitions, for > that matter. > Yeah! Linux was running just as well without Poettering's pet project. Even I have enough experience to determine that matter. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 22:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nid047$oa7$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #3117 |
Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: >On Saturday 28 May 2016 19:57, Marc Haber conveyed the following to >comp.os.linux.hardware... > >> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: >> >>> 1. As much as Lennartus of Borg is trying to assimilate the whole >>> GNU/Linux landscape ? >> >> You won't make any friends by grepping your news spool and dumping off >> your boilerplate texts. > >That was no boilerplate text. As much as it may surprise anyone in this >day and age, I'm still capable of thinking for myself, and what I wrote >is exactly how I feel about Lennart Poettering and his pet project. Thread went systemd and died. I'm fed up with that. -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 07:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <niduuk$3md$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3120 |
On Saturday 28 May 2016 22:47, Marc Haber conveyed the following to
comp.os.linux.hardware...
> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 28 May 2016 19:57, Marc Haber conveyed the following to
>> comp.os.linux.hardware...
>>
>>> Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. As much as Lennartus of Borg is trying to assimilate the whole
>>>> GNU/Linux landscape ?
>>>
>>> You won't make any friends by grepping your news spool and dumping
>>> off your boilerplate texts.
>>
>> That was no boilerplate text. As much as it may surprise anyone in
>> this day and age, I'm still capable of thinking for myself, and what
>> I wrote is exactly how I feel about Lennart Poettering and his pet
>> project.
>
> Thread went systemd and died. I'm fed up with that.
The thread didn't die ─ I am still seeing new posts in another branch ─
and it was you who brought up systemd, not me.
For that matter, your systemd statement was incorrect even. You made
the statement that a separate /usr filesystem would no longer be
supported under systemd ─ which is not true, even though Poettering and
Sievers initially did make that claim ─ and the way you worded it seemed
to convey that there would not be any systemd-less GNU/Linux systems
anymore in the foreseeable future, which, as I've pointed out, is
definitely not true either, in spite of Poettering's and Sievers' wet
dream.
What _is_ true however, is that with the udev which ships with systemd,
a separate /usr filesystem now requires you to boot up with an initramfs
─ which most distributions were already doing either way so as to keep
the kernel modular ─ so that /usr can be mounted from within the
initramfs (using busybox) during early boot. In the past, people who
rolled there own kernels could build everything they needed for booting
into the kernel image itself and could thus boot their system without
using an initramfs or an initrd. So that is something which has
changed.
There are of course also other advantages to using an initramfs, even on
non-systemd systems, such as the fact that you can then tell the boot
loader to use the UUID or LABEL of the root filesystem instead of having
to rely on the legacy /dev/sd?? designations, which are _not guaranteed_
to be persistent across reboots. The kernel itself only supports labels
and UUIDs after it has already booted, and so this is something an
initramfs can be useful for.
Returning back to the subject of logical volume management, it is also
possible to have even the root filesystem on LVM if the system uses an
initramfs for booting, but in that case, /boot will need to be on a
regular (MBR or GPT) partition, because that's what the kernel image and
the initramfs must be loaded from by the boot loader, and GRUB doesn't
understand LVM.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 13:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <th1r1d-3fl.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #3122 |
On 2016-05-29 07:36, Aragorn wrote: > What _is_ true however, is that with the udev which ships with systemd, > a separate /usr filesystem now requires you to boot up with an initramfs > ─ which most distributions were already doing either way so as to keep > the kernel modular ─ so that /usr can be mounted from within the > initramfs (using busybox) during early boot. In the past, people who > rolled there own kernels could build everything they needed for booting > into the kernel image itself and could thus boot their system without > using an initramfs or an initrd. So that is something which has > changed. At the time when openSUSE switched to systemd there was talk to not support anymore a separate /usr partition, which I have been doing for many years. We users had to show our many use cases for a separate /usr partition. They did what was needed, and a separate /usr still works and is not contested :-) At the time we were using mkinitrd to build the initramfs, so they simply had to add more things to that image. Now we have switched to dracut. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.hardware
csiph-web