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:
>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:
>[ 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.
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
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.
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.
> 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 :)