On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Alan E. Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
