Can a (second) hard disc consist of only 1 extended/logical partition? Or is at least one primary necessary?
in [Linux Hardware]
|
Prev: External drive for libdvdcss ?
Next: web camera
From: Daave on 20 Apr 2008 02:04 VanguardLH wrote: <explanation and rant snipped> > If you choose to continue this subthread which has become off-topic to > these newsgroups, I'll probably use FollowUp-To myself - but with > notice - to move it to news.software.readers where it is on-topic. I > doubt the hardware folks really want to debate over the pros and cons > of various newsreaders or over Usenet etiquette. That was very thorough. Thanks for the post!
From: John Thompson on 20 Apr 2008 17:06 (Follow-up set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage) On 2008-04-20, Aragorn <aragorn(a)chatfactory.invalid> wrote: > The Linux kernel doesn't care whether it lives in a partition that's either > primary or logical. That's just legacy stuff from the days of DOS, and > both OS/2 and Windows still require primary partitions to exist. OS/2 only needs a primary partition for its Boot Manager. If you're not using the OS/2 Boot Manager you don't need a primary partition. -- John (john(a)os2.dhs.org)
From: s. keeling on 21 Apr 2008 23:04 ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.hardware.] Andrew Gideon <c172driver1(a)gideon.org>: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:31:41 +0200, Aragorn wrote: > > > > hierarchy tree. For instance, you best split off */var* and */home* > > from the root filesystem, and have */tmp* exist on a /tmpfs./ > > The style I like is to have one partition for /boot Why? What's that get you if /sbin is unreadable? > and the rest of the > disk in a single partition which is allocated to LVM. LVM volumes can > then be created for /home, /usr, /var, etc. This permits new volumes to > be created, or existing ones resized, w/o having to worry about the > concept of "disk layout". Or, have a 40 Gb disk, install (a la Aragorn) $OS, add a ca. 3 Gb /scratch, and I've 26 Gb left to portion out whenever I wish. What does lvm gain you in this situation but an added level of complexity? [Sorry for the rant ...] We've already the distros throwing their ideas of "simpler" at us, as in UUIDs in /etc/fstab (b*st*rds!), and the *obvious* need to migrate from a perfectly workable /dev/hd* /dev/sd* /dev/sr* to /dev/_everything's_an_s_something. Installers have improved greatly, don't get me wrong, and I'm very grateful, but these sorts of changes ought to be user-selectable in NON-expert mode installs. Sweeping changes demand strong warnings! I helped a guy install etch on his sandbox yesterday. It was already running Sidux fine. etch (non-expert) install insisted I install grub. I told it /dev/hdb, where we were installing etch. On reboot, Sidux' (all on hda) grub couldn't find ptn 5. Ripping UUIDs out of Sidux menu.list and fstab and converting it back to /dev/hd* fixed it. Why did we have to go there? For the convenience of a bunch of dolts who can't find their usb keys when they plug them in? Why are we turning fstab and menu.lst into non-human-usable registries? fdisk /dev/hda Command (m for help): m Command action a toggle a bootable flag b edit bsd disklabel c toggle the dos compatibility flag .... U Select UUID addressable partitions .... or something. :-| Sorry about that b*! crack, but I think this is going the wrong way. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292 - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.
From: Lew Pitcher on 21 Apr 2008 23:30 In comp.os.linux.hardware, s. keeling wrote: > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.hardware.] > Andrew Gideon <c172driver1(a)gideon.org>: >> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:31:41 +0200, Aragorn wrote: >> > >> > hierarchy tree. For instance, you best split off */var* and */home* >> > from the root filesystem, and have */tmp* exist on a /tmpfs./ >> >> The style I like is to have one partition for /boot > > Why? What's that get you if /sbin is unreadable? Why would you think that the only dependancy is on the readability of /sbin? A separate /boot partition - can be used with older machines where there is a BIOS limit to the location of the OS - can be mounted as read/only while the rest of the filesystem tree is r/w - can be backed up to a duplicate partition for recovery (alternate boot) purposes - can be stored as an ext2 (or minix, or vfat or ...) filesystem while the rest of the filesystem tree is some other fs (like ext3 or reiserfs) [snip] -- Lew Pitcher Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576 http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | GPG public key available by request ---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------
From: Lew Pitcher on 22 Apr 2008 13:02
In comp.os.linux.hardware, Michael Black wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Lew Pitcher wrote: > >> In comp.os.linux.hardware, s. keeling wrote: >> >>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.hardware.] >>> Andrew Gideon <c172driver1(a)gideon.org>: >>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:31:41 +0200, Aragorn wrote: >>>>> >>>>> hierarchy tree. For instance, you best split off */var* and */home* >>>>> from the root filesystem, and have */tmp* exist on a /tmpfs./ >>>> >>>> The style I like is to have one partition for /boot >>> >>> Why? What's that get you if /sbin is unreadable? >> >> Why would you think that the only dependancy is on the readability of >> /sbin? >> >> A separate /boot partition >> - can be used with older machines where there is a BIOS limit to the >> location of the OS >> - can be mounted as read/only while the rest of the filesystem tree is >> r/w - can be backed up to a duplicate partition for recovery (alternate >> boot) >> purposes >> - can be stored as an ext2 (or minix, or vfat or ...) filesystem while >> the >> rest of the filesystem tree is some other fs (like ext3 or reiserfs) >> > I don't even mount /boot unless I have to make changes to it. I suppose > you'll now give me a good reason why that's bad, No, I won't. To me, that's a perfectly acceptable step to take to secure your system. > but by definition /boot > is only needed at boot time, and once you set up the bootloader so it > knows where the actual kernel is, I can't see any reason why it needs > to be mounted unless you are actually making changes to it. > > Michael -- Lew Pitcher Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576 http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | GPG public key available by request ---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------ |