From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-140617-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260651381F4
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:33:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbbgk1 with SMTP id gk1so614455lbb.40
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; 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: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
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: <yu9r4reaknk.fsf@nyu.edu>
<20120810212213.0ce6e810@khamul.example.com>
<yu91ujcaskm.fsf@nyu.edu>
<20120813090643.3475957e@hactar.digimed.co.uk>
<CA+czFiCfpK3o0MgrrHogyXzyNJ2BFQnVda9gPW9B6nkLJSLezg@mail.gmail.com>
<20120813174712.6569db3e@khamul.example.com>
<CA+czFiD8_2M8FM57JCxCA-WV6iYoVRr+D3x4fHeuqzQNnPxuoQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20120813233839.4ae36e8c@khamul.example.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:33:53 +0700
Message-ID: <CAJ2NdVXbQS+wda328n8CVgsf9NjNXxXMrwxvJFuQyExXGk0+-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] new installation (ssd, new udev, grub2)
From: "J.Marcos Sitorus" <gkjdsh@gmail.com>
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 <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:55:31 -0400
> Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Alan McKinnon
>> <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:23 -0400
>> > Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Neil Bothwick
>> > > <neil@digimed.co.uk> 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