dep composed on 2024-09-02 21:23 (UTC): A separate boot filesystem is usually only used with RAID and/or LVM configurations. The ESP must not be confused with a Linux /boot/ filesystem. /boot/ will be a native filesystem, either integral with the root filesystem, or a separate small native one. The placement of any partition, at least in theory, really doesn't matter on GPT disks. Regardless whether /boot/ is a separate filesystem or not, the ESP is a discrete FAT32 filesystem that mounts to /boot/efi/. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata

Hello all, On Monday 02 September 2024 23:23:04 Mike Bird via tde-users wrote: :-) After a disk crash involving LVM, I am now in camp no-LVM :-) Maybe now it is better, or something, but I also learned that simpler is more robust, and besides with current size of HDD I have more space than I need, so LVM would do nothing for me. I also don't use swap (and this is approach for 20 years I guess), if some program has to crash because of OOM, it better crash fast, than involve reading and writing like crazy on the disk. In my case I now use such setup: * small boot partition * system partition (50-60GB) * second system partition * home partition For my home computer (this one) I use also data partition, for "experimental" computer I add another home partition. Why two system, and two home partitions? To install another system, new version of it, etc. I don't ever upgrade the system directly (the one I use). Hope it helps a bit :-). Kind regards, -- http://przypadkopis.wordpress.com/

said Dr. Nikolaus Klepp via tde-users: | LOL ... i bite my tongue to not point out the obvious LVM problem :) | | Nowadays with SSDs it's quite pointless to use extensive partitioning | schemes - that is, if you are not on OpenBSD. I'll not be using a LVM. I'm sure that LVMs are of use in some circumstance, and I'm happy for those who aresatisfied with them. Maybe I was unclear in my question. No, I'm sure I was. I'm installing a 16tb spinning disk drive. it will be the only hard drive in the machine. It is the only boot drive of that size I've ever installed. Due to its size, I apparently need to set it up in a way that I've not had to deal with before. As I understand it, due to UEFI being necessary for a drive of this size, there are some necessary partitioning tricks. It might be that the Debian install handles this without any intervention on my part. Or it could be that I'll need to set it up ahead of time. So my question was and is: what partitions will I need, must they come in any particular order and/or format, and if so, what should that be? This is before I get to partitioning the drive for the usual things. I realize that this is entirely OT, but this list has a history of being a wealth of knowledge and people willing to share that knowledge. My plan is to change nothing but the Linux distribution and the drive underneath it. Thanks. -- dep Pictures: http://www.ipernity.com/doc/depscribe/album Column: https://ofb.biz/author/dep/

said Dr. Nikolaus Klepp via tde-users: | As somebody mentioned earlier for (U)EFI you'd need one "EFI System" | partition, for the 16TB you need GPT partion table and that's about it. | The rest is just what you usually do - either all in one partition or | seperate /home/ or whatever you like. Thanks. Need it be in any particular place on the drive? Is this something a standard Linux installation program takes care of? -- dep Pictures: http://www.ipernity.com/doc/depscribe/album Column: https://ofb.biz/author/dep/

said Felix Miata via tde-users: | It's not UEFI that requires it. It's too big for the old partition table | scheme developed last century. The new scheme is called GPT, for GUID | Partition Table. Thanks for this. There were a lot of acronyms that erupted during the period between the last two drive installs here. And the last drive install was probably five years ago. It being nontrivial and seldom done, I committed none of it to memory. | Most Linux installers, including that of Debian, are capable of doing | all partitioning required, usually proposing a scheme suitable for use | with the disk space provided, but allowing alterations to that scheme, | or letting you create your own. They will also allow you do simply | specify which partitions you may have already created in advance to use | for what purpose. My chief concern was the FAT32 partition. Looking at my current drive with gparted, I see the attached, and the placement of the partitions puzzled me. But this was during an experiment to boot from a small SSD in pursuit of speed. (Which worked briefly but then didn't; the SSD was SDC.) I'm now interested not so much in having a drag racer as a reliable car to get to town and back. The partitions in the screenshot are not in any order in which I would normally place them, which added to my confusion. | Desire may include a partition for swap, and one or more for user data, | such as one for mounting to /home/, which is where each user account is | situated. Right; got that. Will make a swapfile simply because it is good practice, like putting TDE in /opt, which hasn't really been essential since the days when I was recompiling KDE a couple times a week, and when things went south it was easier to deal with if it was kept in a cage. Now it is probably habit, but also one less variable if things went pear-shaped. | What would be "the usual things"? Order on GPT doesn't matter, but the | convention is ESP first, then everything else. The usual things are as shown in the screenshot; you mentioned that ESP should come first, but as you can see, it somehow ended up as sda4, and I was not sure if this was bookkeeping or the physical location on the drive. I think you've told me what I need, and I thank you. -- dep Pictures: http://www.ipernity.com/doc/depscribe/album Column: https://ofb.biz/author/dep/

said Mike Bird via tde-users: | I've used LVM since roughly 2001, including on laptops and workstations, | on the servers for what was then a regional ISP, on the servers for an | entire school district, and back in the day I used to manage high | traffic NNTP servers for some of the smaller national ISPs. [much deleted] Because I accidentally started this, I think I should respond, albeit slightly. Clearly you have found LVMs highly useful. I confess a prejudice: IBM tried something similar in the waning days of OS/2. Some people appeared to like it, but it made an inescapable mess of my hard drive, ultimately causing me to give up running OS/2 on my second machine at all. Linux isn't OS/2, of course, but it is like the food that once you've been made sick by it poorly prepared you're not likely to try it again, even if the recipe has been refined. Additionally, the many uses and advantages you mention are mostly not things I'll ever encounter. So when I said I have no use for LVMs, it was a comment on my computer, not a critism of LVMs. Thanks for your reply. -- dep Pictures: http://www.ipernity.com/doc/depscribe/album Column: https://ofb.biz/author/dep/

Anno domini 2024 Tue, 3 Sep 08:54:52 -0700 Mike Bird via tde-users scripsit: I don't know how you use LVM exactly, but the usual RAID problems apply: without redundancy a single dying drive kills your filesystem. The only sane form of redundancy is a mirror with read and write verification over all drives, MD does not do this, nor does any of these snakeoil "hardware RAID controllers". That's where ZFS comes in and shines. That's where linux looses big to FreeBSD: no ZFS OOTB for linux - there are projects that care less for license issues, but you are on your own. So ... either ZFS on linux with traditinal mirrored boot/root and "manually" compiled zfs or FreeBSD for storage. That said, I don't use ZFS on linix: it bite me quite hard on my test setups when kernel got updated and the ZFS module did not compile - guess the fun not beeing able to accees my data. Nik -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA, CIA ...