Hi,
> I suspect your root is a lot more than it needs to be, does it
> include /opt?
No, it actually turns out that I have a lot of cruft in
/root. Outdated portage snapshots, old kernel images moved from /boot
when it filled up, mysql binary log files I weren't sure were
essential.. Without all
Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That only means you made / too big, the same would happen if you
> made /boot too big. My / partition is 400MB and less than 50% full, 300MB
> would be plenty.
And I could easily shrink it down to a sane size were it on LVM. That
was kinda the point. Ove
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:06:18 +0200, Zsitvai János wrote:
> > Which is what I used to do, and means you have a separate /boot
> > partition and need an initrd. By combining / and /boot, you have one
> > less partition, the same number of non-LVM partitions and no initrd.
>
> It also means that n
Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which is what I used to do, and means you have a separate /boot partition
> and need an initrd. By combining / and /boot, you have one less
> partition, the same number of non-LVM partitions and no initrd.
It also means that now I have half a gig going u
Hello Marc Joliet,
> What I meant was that I have / on a logical volume, so I can't
> put /root on it.
Which is what I used to do, and means you have a separate /boot partition
and need an initrd. By combining / and /boot, you have one less
partition, the same number of non-LVM partitions and no
Am Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:46:10 +0100
schrieb Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello Marc Joliet,
>
> > > > I use lvm, so that wouldn't yield good results :-/.
> > >
> > > I too use LVM and it yields excellent results.
> > >
> >
> > Now that is you have to explain to me. Is the stage2 fou
Hello Marc Joliet,
> > > I use lvm, so that wouldn't yield good results :-/.
> >
> > I too use LVM and it yields excellent results.
> >
>
> Now that is you have to explain to me. Is the stage2 found regardless
> due to the hardcoded pointer upon installing? So the 'logical' part of
> the vo
Am Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:41:22 +0100
schrieb Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello Marc Joliet,
>
> > > Alternatively, ditch a separate /boot altogether, it really isn't
> > > needed with modern hardware.
> >
> > I use lvm, so that wouldn't yield good results :-/.
>
> I too use LVM and it
Hello Marc Joliet,
> > Alternatively, ditch a separate /boot altogether, it really isn't
> > needed with modern hardware.
>
> I use lvm, so that wouldn't yield good results :-/.
I too use LVM and it yields excellent results.
--
Neil Bothwick
IBM: Inferior But Marketable.
signature.asc
De
Hi,
Marc Joliet wrote:
Am Montag, den 27.08.2007, 11:58 +0100 schrieb Neil Bothwick:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:29:58 +0200, Marc Joliet wrote:
Yeah, I should have set noauto the instant I found out about it. Any
other recommended mount options? Right now they are
defaults,noauto,user_xat
Am Montag, den 27.08.2007, 11:58 +0100 schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:29:58 +0200, Marc Joliet wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I should have set noauto the instant I found out about it. Any
> > other recommended mount options? Right now they are
> >
> > defaults,noauto,user_xattr 1 2
>
> The
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:52:39 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >Alternatively, ditch a separate /boot altogether, it really isn't
> >needed with modern hardware.
> Unless you want to use LVM.
In which case it's just as easy to use a small root partition,
including /boot, /lib, /bin etc.
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote on 27/08/07 22:52:
> On Monday 27 August 2007, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> about 'Re: [gentoo-user] possible MBR corruption?':
>> Alternatively, ditch a separate /boot altogether, it really isn't needed
>> with mod
On Monday 27 August 2007, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] possible MBR corruption?':
>Alternatively, ditch a separate /boot altogether, it really isn't needed
>with modern hardware.
Unless you want to use LVM.
On Monday 27 August 2007, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:29:58 +0200, Marc Joliet wrote:
> > Yeah, I should have set noauto the instant I found out about it. Any
> > other recommended mount options? Right now they are
> >
> > defaults,noauto,user_xattr 1 2
>
> The trouble with using
On Monday 27 August 2007, Mick wrote:
> On Monday 27 August 2007, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > Alternatively, ditch a separate /boot altogether, it really isn't
> > needed with modern hardware.
>
> Please tell us more.
Many many many years ago, back in the dark days of small drives and
broken BIOSes,
Hello Mick,
> > Alternatively, ditch a separate /boot altogether, it really isn't
> > needed with modern hardware.
>
> Please tell us more.
A separate /boot is to get round BIOS limitation that prevent accessing
beyond the first so many cylinders (1024?) of a drive, so it was
essential to have
On Monday 27 August 2007, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Alternatively, ditch a separate /boot altogether, it really isn't needed
> with modern hardware.
Please tell us more.
--
Regards,
Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:29:58 +0200, Marc Joliet wrote:
> Yeah, I should have set noauto the instant I found out about it. Any
> other recommended mount options? Right now they are
>
> defaults,noauto,user_xattr 1 2
The trouble with using noauto is that sooner or later you will forget to
mount /b
Am Freitag, den 24.08.2007, 23:43 +0100 schrieb Mick:
> On Friday 24 August 2007, Marc Joliet wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 24.08.2007, 19:42 +0100 schrieb Mick:
>
> > > At that stage you should have checked if the symlink /boot/grub/menu.lst
> > > is still there and, or if its permissions were messe
On Friday 24 August 2007, Marc Joliet wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 24.08.2007, 19:42 +0100 schrieb Mick:
> > At that stage you should have checked if the symlink /boot/grub/menu.lst
> > is still there and, or if its permissions were messed up.
>
> Yes, I should have. I know it was there, though, since
Am Freitag, den 24.08.2007, 19:42 +0100 schrieb Mick:
> On Friday 24 August 2007, Marc Joliet wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > After the reboot following my daily upgrade from yesterday - during
> > which a revised kernel was installed - GRUB just wouldn't finish
> > starting. It's attempt to start looked li
On Friday 24 August 2007, Marc Joliet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After the reboot following my daily upgrade from yesterday - during
> which a revised kernel was installed - GRUB just wouldn't finish
> starting. It's attempt to start looked like this:
>
> GRUB _
>
> with the underscore blinking. Ctrl-alt-del
Hi,
After the reboot following my daily upgrade from yesterday - during
which a revised kernel was installed - GRUB just wouldn't finish
starting. It's attempt to start looked like this:
GRUB _
with the underscore blinking. Ctrl-alt-del (reboot) worked.
Now, to make it clear, I solved that: aft
24 matches
Mail list logo
