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	2016-06-05 14:31 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Strider
Message-ID	<nj1626$43l$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <nibgi9$4rh$2@dont-email.me> <nibklf$j25$1@news1.tnib.de> <nibui5$eis$2@dont-email.me> <niu17u$b8c$2@saria.nerim.net> <nj0tqi$6tc$1@dont-email.me>

Followups directed to: comp.os.linux.hardware

Show all headers | View raw

On Sunday 05 Jun 2016 12:10, Henrik Carlqvist conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.hardware...

> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 09:50:22 +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> 
>> Henrik Carlqvist a écrit :
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Why ?
>> fsck cares about filesystems, not partitions. One partition does not
>> mean one filesystem.
> 
> Yes, as long as you have different file systems on different
> partitions or on different logical volumes you avoid this problem.
> 
> However, using LVM to create only one single file system knowing that
> you will be able to resize it if needed in the future might seem like
> a simple approach to many. But using LVM that way will give you fsck
> disadvantages as well as the disadvantages from havint an unimportant
> directory tree filled up affecting more important directory trees.
> 
> But are you with LVM really able to have multiple logical volumes if
> you only have one single partition?

Yes, of course.  That's the whole idea.

> I thought that you would need at least one partition for every logical
> volume and that you would need one logical volume for each file
> system?

No...  The first step is to create a physical volume with 
/sbin/pvcreate.  This can span an entire hard disk, so that the hard 
disk doesn't even need to have a partition table (although it can), or 
you can choose a real partition as the physical volume.  Using an entire 
hard disk as the physical volume without that there is a partition table 
is of course not recommended for system disks.

Then, within the physical volume, you create logical volumes with 
/sbin/lvcreate.  Logical volumes can be contiguous or discontiguous.  
Then, you create a filesystem on each created logical volume by using 
the filesystem creation tools for the filesystem you wish to have on 
there.  You can use different filesystem types and different block 
sizes, et al, just as you would with normal partitions.

At boot time, the system scans the hard disks with /sbin/lvscan, invoked 
via the boot scripts.

An alternative to using the traditional logical volumes is a filesystem 
with a built-in volume manager, such as btrfs or Solaris' ZFS.  Those 
filesystems don't use a separate step for creating the individual 
volumes, because they support multiple filesystem roots, and so you 
simply create the parent filesystem, and then you create separate 
volumes when creating directories as you go along.  

So for instance, you create a partition and create a btrfs filesystem on 
it, and you intend to use that partition as your root filesystem.  Then, 
you create a directory /home within the already formatted filesystem, 
and you tell the filesystem that /home must be a separate subvolume.

Every modern distribution will come with the tools already installed, 
and by consequence, also with the man pages for those tools.  If you're 
interested in the subject, then I recommend perusing those man pages, 
because they will already be on your system anyway, so you won't have to 
install them separately. ;)

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

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