From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KKvs0-0002Qv-KG for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:56:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 83B14E03B3; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.171]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32424E03B3 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so1160996wfg.10 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:56:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=6FpEIzpBI4BKuN43GSEH9l/kLuWDDZnfDHIFsYcvTD8=; b=ESY+TdHK6WqVFDwA5heIuLrTUOLPkAukZMebIW9QWT8sJ/TGgml0+WP46v1wT9Z/Tb oqUp763Swy5GG9gDAzeteXrOdSQV5nmjKQDDSWRzJjENHwpfsHnQ4r8B7yOBYR3rFeEN WuAsBM8D/fbzD9fgO5Owem0fAKZPlzxoEexU4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=bZcLLjnPU5SRQZlnjaUXF3FsPqJTK9473iLH1oEjPqXbjgX6EdLs3GEHNr2Ie+FB47 KHC0CjJw6BRcvOZ4SQ9SD+DOFNWY/fFE0vKc5gJKVj6LYQ29ptwaKZqU/IRntEiXHtBS DvwI/MariErL1fUT9+uZHDY6UjPZHAc9tOnuM= Received: by 10.142.217.17 with SMTP id p17mr1349237wfg.105.1216648565663; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.128.3 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:56:05 +0200 From: "Alan McKinnon" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] A few questions on trying to install In-Reply-To: <7bef1f890807210602g242be7d1v50ed694dfe0e7e9f@mail.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/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_78333_13420014.1216648565657" References: <7bef1f890807202247q79d4568sa8b9e6ab11499e43@mail.gmail.com> <200807211109.09861.dirk.heinrichs@online.de> <20080721120924.08311dad@digimed.co.uk> <200807211331.51841.dirk.heinrichs@online.de> <20080721124609.41fa1d12@digimed.co.uk> <7bef1f890807210602g242be7d1v50ed694dfe0e7e9f@mail.gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: ff051e74-10fc-4688-ba57-1d42bec83586 X-Archives-Hash: 4f51b370b047993514fb0a490015960e ------=_Part_78333_13420014.1216648565657 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Alan E. Davis wrote: > Thank you for some thoughtful suggestions. > > I have just gotten a 500GB SATA drive, intending to back up all of my > data. What I fear most about LVM is the possibility of losing the > data somehow. I may be too yesterday, but I sense that ordinary > partitions (at least "ordinary" to me) will be more portable. I may > want to unpack my system, and carry my Drives with me. So consider this: Virtually any system you will use these days that can read ext2/3/reiser drives will also be able to use LVM volumes. If not, it can easily be gotten to do so (via modprobe) > I've been > trying to work around the same /home/USER directories for several > years. I have archived them from time to time when they have gotten > too crazy. And (correct me if I'm wrong) I've become some kind of > intimidated about using the same directory and username on a new > install, so I generally end up copying all the pieces over. nah, that's false paranoia. cp, scp, rsync, chown, chmod. Used i the right combinations, will fix any problems in this regard. They are just files after all. > > > Outside of this possibly irrational fear that LVM mayn't be portable, > I actually did delete an entire install once that was on LVM, but that > was due to my own ignorance. I am no less ignorant now, but if my > fears about portability can be allayed, I would be willing to try. > And learn. LVM is an old, old, old technology. Originally developed by IBM for their mainframes. It predates that absurb concoction called "partition tables". Apart from 640kB, that must rate as one of the worst screw-ups in computing ever... > > Be that as it may, I have just cleansed my 74GB 10000RPM drive, and > look forward to installing on this, and hanging various directories > off of this. Assuming, for now, I am only going to be using some > unexotic partitioning system, which partitions will be most > advantageously situated on this fast drive? I am thinking along > these lines: > > FAST PARTITION > / yes, keep this separate /boot good to keep this separate too /usr/bin > /usr/sbin > /usr/local/ No, this is simply thick. Maybe one could make a case for /usr/local, but /usr/bin and /usr/sbin were usually separate on Unix several decades ago *purely because* disks were small and it's a convenient way to split things up to fit on available disks. Just stick all of /usr on one volume and be done with it. You might want to move /usr/portage and perhaps /usr/portage onto their own filesystem, because those directories do have different usage patterns than everything else in /usr part of home with well-used files ALL of /home. Why split it up? You lose the very benefit of having /home separate - the ability to update the entire system and guarantee that you won't stuff up your personal files while doing it /tmp? /tmp benefits from being separate. If you have a lot of RAM, it really benefits from being tmpfs rather than disk-based I have a lot of ARCHIVED data that should be on a separate partition > and this could be slow. Good idea. It also lets you tar up an entire filesystem for backup purposes -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com ------=_Part_78333_13420014.1216648565657 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Alan E. Davis <lngndvs@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for some thoughtful suggestions.

I have just gotten a 500GB SATA drive, intending to back up all of my
data.  What I fear most about LVM is the possibility of losing the
data somehow.  I may be too yesterday, but I sense that ordinary
partitions (at least "ordinary" to me) will be more portable.  I may
want to unpack my system, and carry my Drives with me.

So consider this: Virtually any system you will use these days that can read ext2/3/reiser drives will also be able to use LVM volumes. If not, it can easily be gotten to do so (via modprobe)
 
 I've been
trying to work around the same /home/USER directories for several
years.   I have archived them from time to time when they have gotten
too crazy.  And (correct me if I'm wrong) I've become some kind of
intimidated about using the same directory and username on a new
install, so I generally end up copying all the pieces over.

nah, that's false paranoia.

cp, scp, rsync, chown, chmod. Used i the right combinations, will fix any  problems in this regard. They are just files after all.


Outside of this possibly irrational fear that LVM mayn't be portable,
I actually did delete an entire install once that was on LVM, but that
was due to my own ignorance.  I am no less ignorant now, but if my
fears about portability can be allayed, I would be willing to try.
And learn.

LVM is an old, old, old technology. Originally developed by IBM for their mainframes. It predates that absurb concoction called "partition tables". Apart from 640kB, that must rate as one of the worst screw-ups in computing ever...

Be that as it may, I have just cleansed my 74GB 10000RPM drive, and
look forward to installing on this, and hanging various directories
off of this.  Assuming, for now, I am only going to be using some
unexotic partitioning system, which partitions will be most
advantageously situated on this fast drive?   I am thinking along
these lines:

  FAST PARTITION
    /

yes, keep this separate

    /boot

good to keep this separate too

    /usr/bin
    /usr/sbin
    /usr/local/

No, this is simply thick.
Maybe one could make a case for /usr/local, but /usr/bin and /usr/sbin were usually separate on Unix several decades ago *purely because* disks were small and it's a convenient way to split things up to fit on available disks.

Just stick all of /usr on one volume and be done with it. You might want to move /usr/portage and perhaps /usr/portage onto their own filesystem, because those directories do have different usage patterns than everything else in /usr

    part of home with well-used files

ALL of /home.

Why split it up? You lose the very benefit of having /home separate - the ability to update the entire system and guarantee that you won't stuff up your personal files while doing it

    /tmp?

/tmp benefits from being separate. If you have a lot of RAM, it really benefits from being tmpfs rather than disk-based

I have a lot of ARCHIVED data that should be on a separate partition
and this could be slow.

Good idea. It also lets you tar up an entire filesystem for backup purposes

--
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
------=_Part_78333_13420014.1216648565657--