Ken Moffat wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 06:08:56PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Dan McGhee wrote:
I started this thread so that I wouldn’t hijack my own over on -dev.
“...set up a new system based on UEFI and GPT. Our new system will dual
boot: it will work with both UEFI and BIOS firmware. “ The disk created
was 10GB.
I am not able to “copy and paste” the partition table after the
exercise from running <parted -l>. So I will attempt to recreate the table:
Number Start End Size Code Name
1 2048 411647 200.MiB EF00 EFI System
2 34 2047 1007.0 KiB EF02 BIOS boot partition
3 411648 821247 200.0 MiB 8300 Linux /boot filesystem
4 821248 20971486 200.0 MiB 8300 Linux /root filesystem
I hope that table comes through holding the formatting.
Not quite. I reformatted a bit by removing tabs/spaces.
However, I think the format of the disk above is poor. The partitions are
out of order. 1 and 2 are reversed. Also, the BIOS boot partition is not
aligned on a 1MiB boundary. On a modern disk, is the loss of 1007.0 KiB
really important? That's less than a floppy disk.
When you copied, the size of partition 4 is way off. Should be around 10G
by my calculation.
No swap partition? Personally, I think a /home partition is always useful.
Change the system, but not user data. But that's really a different
discussion.
Just a comment on the bios boot partition's alignment: I forget
exactly how I set this up, and it is too late to look through my
notes tonight, but gdisk on this machine shows:
Disk /dev/sda: 976773168 sectors, 465.8 GiB
Logical sector size: 512 bytes
Disk identifier (GUID): D7E3F344-D44D-1E7E-40B5-479D3F1E4309
Partition table holds up to 128 entries
First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 976773134
Partitions will be aligned on 8-sector boundaries
Total free space is 16072685 sectors (7.7 GiB)
Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size Code Name
1 34 204833 100.0 MiB EF02 BIOS boot partition
2 204834 2301985 1024.0 MiB 0700 Linux/Windows data
etc
So to me, sector 34 for the bios boot partition looks correct
(that's the one where grub lives, isn't it ?)
Yes it is but 100M is *way* too big. Note that for disks with 4K
sectors with 512 byte sector emulation, sector 34 above does not align
with the physical sector. It's not really that big a deal because it's
rarely written and only read at boot time.
See for instance
http://askubuntu.com/questions/201164/proper-alignment-of-partitions-on-an-advanced-format-hdd-using-parted
If it's done the same on all drives, then you don't need to worry about
the disk's physical format.
I've found on a virtual system like qemu, if I create a new GPT with
gdisk, the first sector is created at sector 2048 by default, which is a
good standard to use everywhere. parted doesn't do it right by default
and the syntax is crazy.
sda2 is /boot, the other partitions are whatever suits me.
Right.
As it happens, I now use 15GB for each potential '/', (I like to
keep old systems semi-usable, and to have multiple development
systems, but *anybody* intending to use LFS long-term ought to have
at least two potential '/' partitions).
Right again.
To me, an example with only a single 10GB system for '/' is fine for
a vm, but not a good thing to show as an example if people are going
to be following it on real disks (repartitioning a real disk, even
with good backups, is always a pain, and restoring the data is
usually a slow job).
True.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
