Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #3122

Re: maximum number of partitions

From Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject Re: maximum number of partitions
Followup-To comp.os.linux.hardware
Date 2016-05-29 07:36 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Strider
Message-ID <niduuk$3md$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (11 earlier) <nic0q1$f7e$1@news1.tnib.de> <nichpf$g0r$1@dont-email.me> <nicm5e$1c9$1@news1.tnib.de> <nicn1c$b3l$1@dont-email.me> <nid047$oa7$1@news1.tnib.de>

Followups directed to: comp.os.linux.hardware

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to comp.os.linux.hardware | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web