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 C9CD31381FA for ; Sun, 4 May 2014 10:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BE634E0A40; Sun, 4 May 2014 10:51:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq1.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq1.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.42.164]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88BEE09F0 for ; Sun, 4 May 2014 10:51:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.42.134] (helo=smtp3.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq1.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wgu0t-0003bP-9k for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 12:51:19 +0200 Received: from 53579160.cm-6-8c.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([83.87.145.96] helo=data.antarean.org) by smtp3.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wgu0s-0004N6-TX for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 12:51:19 +0200 Received: from andromeda.localnet (unknown [10.20.13.150]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7495E4C for ; Sun, 4 May 2014 12:50:46 +0200 (CEST) From: "J. Roeleveld" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] boot problems Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 12:49:18 +0200 Message-ID: <3349320.Vv5J0h2UtC@andromeda> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.10.25-gentoo; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <5366052A.8080209@xunil.at> References: <5364C0F9.3000906@xunil.at> <6603098.FxQB9JV5gG@wstn> <5366052A.8080209@xunil.at> 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Ziggo-spambar: ---- X-Ziggo-spamscore: -4.8 X-Ziggo-spamreport: ALL_TRUSTED=-1,BAYES_00=-1.9,PROLO_TRUST_RDNS=-3,RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982,WORDPRESS_PLUS=0.12 X-Ziggo-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Flag: No X-Archives-Salt: eae6342e-0dd7-4198-a98b-4766d98a3aab X-Archives-Hash: af27809b4b390d220b65e1a257555140 On Sunday, May 04, 2014 11:15:22 AM Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: > Do I have to change things because it's better that way, is it worth the > effort ... ? Should I go away from RAID because LVM could stripe/mirror > by itself? Should I go away from LVM because it's kinda old technology? > ... all these things to consider. I wouldn't use the stripe/mirror support in LVM as I don't think it is used often and I feel that functionality doesn't belong in LVM. If you want to move it all into a single layer, I would suggest ZFS instead. > And then you get into issues with block sizes and stuff, where I always > wonder why *I* have to type all these parameters ... why doesn't modern > software just come with this knowledge inside? > > .... you know > > *sigh* ;-) I agree, and I feel that has actually improved over time with modern tools defaulting to 4k sectors. > >> I am not so far to skip the initramfs -> I don't *know* that, I > >> just tested removing the line from grub2 and it failed finding the > >> root-fs. > > > > I've never had an initramfs, seeing no need in my case to keep /usr > > on its own partition. > > I don't have that either ... Then it should work, provided you have all the required drivers inside your kernel and not as modules. I also believe an initramfs is needed when using LABELs for the root-fs. > >> For booting from a plain partition on an SSD I think I shouldn't > >> need an initramfs? Does it have to do with MBR/GPT as well (the SSD > >> is still/again MBR, as UEFI booting broke badly for me back then) > >> ? > > > > As far as I know, the only thing that /requires/ an initramfs is > > having a separate /usr. And I can't help you with GPT or UEFI - > > sorry. > > As mentioned: I don't know if it has any benefits in my case. > > My desktop once was set up to boot gentoo via UEFI (Grub2), worked OK, > then something happened and I spent hours to fix it, then went back to > BIOS/MBR. I just thought I could set that up now that I clean through my > disks and partitioning. > > One of my thinkpads boots via UEFI, that was rather straight to set up > and works fine. At the moment, I don't see, from a simple user perspective, any real difference between booting using UEFI and BIOS/MBR. -- Joost