-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
houghi wrote:
> I just looked at what is now there and to make it clear that it was not
> LVM. Could be anything, I guess. FAT32? :-)
Almost - FAT32 might be a bit too low-end for that. But it's pretty
common to use ext2 for /boot - you don't really need more and using a
journalled file system like ext3/ReiserFS/XFS/JFS would just eat up disk
space. There is not much to journal as the content of /boot won't change
very frequently. And if you keep /boot at a reasonable small size, an
fsck should not take that long anyway.
> I do not believe that at this moment it is relevant in the discussion what
> it will become later.
Right, this is the trivial part ;)
> OK. I understand. To avaid confusion, we use different names for someting
> that fr the layman like me is the same. ;-)
Right, in the both are just containers for a file system.
> With a fresh installation, you have the option to mix the old and the
> proposed GRUB menu.lst. The following is from memory, so names might be a
> bit different and you will need to look for yourself.
> Where you can select the way things are partitioned and the software to
> install choose the secon tab, Advanced. There you can select how to boot.
> If you select GRUB, you have a button in the lower right, "Other", where
> you can do a "Merge" with what you have now.
> The names come out a bit awkward, but you should be able to keep your
> current settings AND your new ones in one go from boot on.
Right, now I remember there used to be something like that. I will have
to take a closer look next time I perform a fresh install.
> I see very much the advantages. It would solve also issues where you first
> had only /home and / as volumes (partitions makes more sence still, but
> whatever) on the LVM and then suddenly realize that you want to keep
> /srv with a new installation. You could then resize / and /home, add /a
> new volume /srv and move all the data over from / to /srv.
Exactly!
> Do the new installation and still have what you wanted to keep. Am I
> correct in this idea?
Yes, that's how it works. LVM scans the disk for existing volumes and
the YaST2 LVM frontend lists these similar to already existing
partitions. You can assign these to new mount points without formatting.
> If so, then by all means. Pitty it was not clear when it was decided to go
> to / and /home, Would have een great to do at the same time and would have
> stopped the part where people said to also have a seperate /opt, /srv,
> /var, /boot, /whatever.
It really depends what purpose the system is used for. For a server,
this might make sense. For a desktop workstation, I think a separation
between the root file system and /home should be sufficient.
> Unless somebody can think of a huge drawback, I am convinced now.
Thanks ;)
Bye,
LenZ
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenz Grimmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -o)
[ICQ: 160767607 | Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /\\
http://www.lenzg.org/ V_V
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEgGHUSVDhKrJykfIRAlnpAJ4/Vpkuz777tWdyyWYlDWXY274DwgCfSbtl
5ZCUNl4Ls89NgsdAD+AkOHA=
=8kqS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
