Prev: Now, my Debian thinks I have SCSI for my old IDE/ATA drives afterinstalling Kernel 2.6.32-4?
Next: Are there any Linux liveCD that have mcelog enabled?
From: Anton Ertl on 25 Apr 2010 09:13
Ant <ant(a)zimage.comANT> writes:
>Hello.
>
>Recently, I upgraded a bunch of Debian packages and installed Kernel
>v2.6.32-4 (had -3 packages) through apt-get. I rebooted and noticed all
>my hd* were gone. They were replaced with sd* instead. Some datas:
>
># dmesg
....
>[ 1.104125] libata version 3.00 loaded.
....
>Is this a bug, by design, or a misconfiguration on my old PC?

This is by design. The libata driver (unlike the old ide driver) acts
as if everything was a SCSI drive. I don't know why, but that's the
way it is.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton(a)mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
From: Nico Kadel-Garcia on 27 Apr 2010 07:44
On Apr 26, 12:12 pm, Alan Mackenzie <a...(a)muc.de> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.setup Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 25, 12:44?pm, "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodg...(a)nomail.afraid.org>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:54:33 -0400, Ant <a...(a)zimage.comant> wrote:
> >> > Thanks. Do I assume SCSI will still the same values too? How does
> >> > one tell apart if you have both ATA and SCSI together (not that I
> >> > will ever a SCSI device/card)?
> >> Yes. ?Determining whether it's a scsi drive, ide, sata, or something
> >> else can no longer be done based on the device name. ?Lower level
> >> tools are required for that.
> >> One thing to keep in mind, is that scsi drives have a limit of 15
> >> partitions.
> > What kind of crack monkey slaps more than 15 partitions on one drive?
>
> Er, one like me?  The recommendation used to be (perhaps still is)
> setting up distinct partitions for things like /usr, /var, /home, /tmp,
> /boot, /swap, and even /var/spool/mail, /usr/local, .....  You don't have
> to be installing many installations before you hit that 15 partition
> limit.  Indeed with a near-infinite number of partitions available (63,
> 64?) who worries too much about eeking out their partitions?
>
> With a limit of 15 partitions on a modern 1Tb drive, the average
> partition size has got to be at least 66Gb.  That's too big.
>
> One answer is to build a kernel with /dev/hd?, and carry on happily using
> /dev/hda and friends.  Another is to use logical volume managers.

Most installers do a few by default. Many installers set up separate /
boot (which needs to be a fileysystem legible to grub), /home (to
isolate user's normal work), /var (because it tends to grow with logs
and spools, etc. Part of the problem is that despite tools like
gparted that promise to do so gracefully, resizing and re-arranging
partitions is dangerous and messy business, and it can often be
difficult to predict where you'll need all the disk. A new website
with ISO images may wind up in /var/www/html, or in a user's /home/
[clientname]/ for some webhosting utilities. Somebody building bulky
local versions of software may have massive, slightly different
versions of software in /usr/local/src/..

In practice, I find it far more effective to set up a modest / (of say
20 GB) and /var (of 10 GB) and allocate large partitions with special
filesystem settings (such as "noatime") to other repositories, and
have a reasonable monitor complain to me if it ever gets above 80%.
The need for a separate "/boot" has mostly gone away since ReiserFS
has been effectively discarded, and / is more commonly ext3.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 8 May 2010 10:40
Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:
> Am Thu, 06 May 2010 09:57:10 GMT
> schrieb anton(a)mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl):
>
>> The reason I have separate partitions for /home and /usr/local is that
>> I want to share them among different systems. E.g., I switched from
>> RedHat to Fedora Core 1 to Gentoo to Debian while keeping /home and
>> /usr/local the same. And for each new system I used a new partition.
>> In the end I used the partitions up to number 15 (some of the primary
>> partition numbers were unused).
>
> Having /home separate is a good idea, but usually it ends up in a
> different set of disks -- or in my case on a NAS -- anyway. When I was
> talking about a single big /, then I was referring to the system's
> installation, i.e. no separation into /var/, /usr/ and such.
>
> In my university, when we were equipping the physics computer lab with
> new machines, a lot of partitioning schemes were suggested. Well, the
> first 5 testing installations I did, used the "big-root" scheme.
> Apparently my colleagues enjoyed the reduction of
> ENOSPACELEFT-during-installation headaches, that it's now used in the
> installation proper. We did partition the disks though, so that we can
> put alternate systems there later.
>
>
> Wolfgang
>
I think for a single user desktop, one big partition works best really.

A multi-user server is another matter entirely.


From: Robert Wolfe on 12 May 2010 18:15
On Sat, 8 May 2010, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> In my university, when we were equipping the physics computer lab with
>> new machines, a lot of partitioning schemes were suggested. Well, the
>> first 5 testing installations I did, used the "big-root" scheme.
>> Apparently my colleagues enjoyed the reduction of
>> ENOSPACELEFT-during-installation headaches, that it's now used in the
>> installation proper. We did partition the disks though, so that we can
>> put alternate systems there later.
>>
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
> I think for a single user desktop, one big partition works best really.
>
> A multi-user server is another matter entirely.

I guess every admin has their own set of preferences. I use the
multi-partition scheme. Help me keep things organized from one distro to
the next :)

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Now, my Debian thinks I have SCSI for my old IDE/ATA drives afterinstalling Kernel 2.6.32-4?
Next: Are there any Linux liveCD that have mcelog enabled?