From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191A51381F3 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 16:55:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A3C5FE0C2C; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 16:55:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com (mail-we0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AAA1E0BE2 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 16:55:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id u57so3952642wes.11 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:55:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=npoxiVQ7k7RaeFPzZx8bwRz9vEalBJbjFRr62/vBYCM=; b=KwqYBIDZHjo9NLjO+HhLP+MD71vyn0dCWQEnUqlZHoyCYs1ttoQ7rBBeLUXNZgwrE9 l5iWxZHUtv46lPxBRRmNW1DGTFA/rTaiXBUwvgWyE8IjK85S4ID33YvaWa9Uwwc7Y2pH iF0f6sDIYMkhPGnq9sxaxxsU0SoXfjJ+XCo3g0d6hFCVd6poKklnBrICN96306ZnskiG L6/5F0MFRBiLqd/qgYbiMpf3Ah5wgSR52gc3FLC3vQeYUQEixo6gGc4Ab9PbGAse5ICh /74AEW9qs/6u+ip6jcCRAxFWJguiYbsvanSBOWH/D4mk8926n2fw0xTtjPQ5+L8seagU 5DvQ== X-Received: by 10.180.72.148 with SMTP id d20mr7128387wiv.21.1380387313952; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell_xps.localnet (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa. [217.169.3.230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ey4sm7815602wic.11.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:55:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01 Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:54:44 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.10.7-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <20130927222109.GD23408@server> <5246D674.1010806@hadt.biz> <5246F07F.8050100@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5246F07F.8050100@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart6005347.zqppIOVREW"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201309281755.03143.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: bfb7d235-7615-49c6-8faa-9066081ac916 X-Archives-Hash: 5f9c04edb68750d16ccf31c3e66f5c6c --nextPart6005347.zqppIOVREW Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Saturday 28 Sep 2013 16:06:39 Dale wrote: > Michael Hampicke wrote: > > Am 28.09.2013 13:32, schrieb Tanstaafl: > >> On 2013-09-27 7:10 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >>> No really,*why exactly*? > >>=20 > >> Because that was the RECOMMENDED WAY IN THE GENTOO HANDBOOK when I fir= st > >> set this system up many years ago. > >=20 > > Where did you read that? According to the 2004 handbook the default > > partition scheme was: > >=20 > > Partition Filesystem Size Description > > /dev/hda1 ext2 32M Boot partition > > /dev/hda2 (swap) 512M Swap partition > > /dev/hda3 ext3 Rest of the disk Root partition >=20 > http://web.archive.org/web/20040419042803/http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ha= nd > book/handbook-x86.xml?full=3D1 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > I guess I got mine from the handbook back in early 2003. That is when I > did my first install. >=20 > Also, as I stated, I have / and /boot on regular partitions and > everything else on LVM. Care to guess why I don't have / on a LVM too? > Yep, to avoid the init thingy. I don't have /boot on LVM because grub > didn't support it. >=20 > Dale I recall that in 2003 the separate /usr was shown as an option of multi- partition install, rather than the 'recommended' way to install gentoo. Ma= ny=20 followed it and some stayed with it. In those heady days of slow ATA drive= s,=20 moving a partition closer to the start of the disk also made a difference i= n=20 access/read/write speeds. Even with SATA 1.0 I used to get some noticeable= =20 difference, although I never ran any benchmarks at the time. =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart6005347.zqppIOVREW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJSRwnnAAoJELAdA+zwE4YeiR4H/jEvxW12Mj/E7ONctICxmEJI phu5+9PwLrWIzUP6KLidFjdcIHouinjhkSkjuNmG7Jxbv/XY6LldUJO0vXfFBR97 7djN5Sdttv/d9pZaD1ZFlbRdo7C+IZ8SZXty+DGp8xIy6VETH9YkyUmCn9BZBeuN CpFFEBuoItOYs7z/IExS+eXqYEsEp5UbyhwZaTyk5aUps362qWLM1WAglsc1Dw3K xcpGjMlA1IEQkFcMKnaNCMaPxg2KR4IJrzQjCbxZdaLzkQv9NhiGMYbZVP6Gm6Lz g4C936WJftcSubEgYwI6vEm7QMLcl6kOIh7cwW6BOyd0uOUZuSWAK9I4gBQJ3OE= =fiiY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart6005347.zqppIOVREW--