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 260651381F4 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4573421C010; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F138E0AB0 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:33:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbgk1 with SMTP id gk1so614455lbb.40 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:33:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vOkrzUBemM8rS6Uk6ufiV/hE2MrSzz45Wr6HKybZ6b8=; b=JsRHn6fG9TA/PO739TMacKT5FYg13A+lhN+DAZynevI+sAXuPCkcVB65tiggmGLqF/ FQEH+i9zNJDNc2/TKEnMEb07+Q8bObd5syMbR0fvcaipaFEqz5U6ku07DmHFd8mp8LYz tRPeBZnHHk+7gGRc6wFoB0OBCpjoES5qnes4aS48SSlZYi61at+IPoOxiXFenDkfpLu6 qL6Mx3VC0y1ZAUea+4JxWsNs1Qpgf8wASx9l/+tCiVECJFanlnryJNndH9Sm1awi8f4M 41k/Y6gGZTsQNoZ/XsGlbZlqmIwegtsItV026pYsDkrJI7R12+zVIrc9y4AXcELweAQ3 16JA== 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 Received: by 10.152.111.200 with SMTP id ik8mr17726728lab.15.1344998033355; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.61.103 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:33:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120813233839.4ae36e8c@khamul.example.com> References: <20120810212213.0ce6e810@khamul.example.com> <20120813090643.3475957e@hactar.digimed.co.uk> <20120813174712.6569db3e@khamul.example.com> <20120813233839.4ae36e8c@khamul.example.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:33:53 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] new installation (ssd, new udev, grub2) From: "J.Marcos Sitorus" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 7ae2a38d-b195-412f-8183-8c9ce14ec7f3 X-Archives-Hash: b509b5946b7b76dca5d17e5797690551 Hi guys, after quick read about ssd, I have a couple of question: 1. My friend have new server with a ssd installed. He plan to RHEL 5.7 (I don't know why he choose this) on it. On redhat website, it say something like this: "However, if the device does not export topology information, Red Hat recommends that the first partition be created at a 1MB boundary." What does it mean by 1MB boundary? Does it mean he have to create 1MB free space in front or he have to create a 1MB partition in front of his actual partition(s)? 2. Is it possible to combine TRIM support and ext3 partition (AFAIK, RHEL 5.7 haven't support ext4)? *i hope this is not count as hijacking On 8/14/12, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:55:31 -0400 > Michael Mol wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Alan McKinnon >> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:23 -0400 >> > Michael Mol wrote: >> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Neil Bothwick >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:11:37 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > > I have one of those. But I decided to stick with >> > > > > > traditional DOS partitioning style and grub instead of GPT >> > > > > > and grub2. >> > > > > >> > > > > I am leaning toward traditional partitioning, but with >> > > > > grub2. Do those two not mix well? >> > > > >> > > > GRUB2 works fine with MBR partition tables. But if you're >> > > > starting from scratch, you may as well use GPT and get rid of >> > > > the legacy MBR limitations and fragility. >> > > > >> > > >> > > I'm not dissing GPT...but what's fragile about MBR? >> > >> > it's 30 years old, >> > only 4 primary partitions, >> > only 16 extended partitions, >> > it's got that weird DOS boot flag thing, >> > it all has to fit in one sector. >> > >> > I had to fix a mispartitioned disk over the weekend, this really >> > should have been a simple mv-type operation, but because all 4 >> > primary partitions were in use I had to disable swap and use it as >> > a leap-frog area. It felt like I was playing 15 pieces with the >> > disk. That's fragile - not that the disk breaks, but that it breaks >> > my ability to set the thing up easily. >> > >> > Basically, mbr was built to cater for the needs of DOS-3. In the >> > meantime, 1982 called and they want their last 30 years back. >> > >> > Just because we can hack workarounds into it to get it to function >> > doesn't mean we should continue to use it. >> > >> >> You misunderstand me. I wasn't arguing that GPT wasn't perhaps more >> elegant than MBR and dos partitions. I wanted to know what was >> _fragile_ about MBR. Completely different things. > > I did answer (somewhat obliquely). > > mbr as a single isolated unit is not especially fragile; very little > software is and bits don't magically "rot" > > It's the system into which the sysadmin inserts mbr that is fragile. > The whole system is fragile like an egg is fragile - it can't withstand > much manhandling or moving of stuff around before some mistake wreaks > everything, and that is mostly due to mbr's limits. > > It's not semantic nitpicking here, if the system as a unit becomes > fragile as a result of part X, then the system is still fragile. > > -- > Alan McKinnon > alan.mckinnon@gmail.com > > > --=20 Salam, J.Marcos S. Sent from X1=E2=84=A2