Re: UFS partitioning
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 09:16:00AM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > >AFAIK the "danger" is that someone boots the machine with an > >installer for some other OS, and that installer treats the > >disk as unformatted -- hence "obviously" containing nothing > >important -- because it doesn't have a recognizable MBR. > > some people rarely boot other OS :) And, in that case, it probably doesn't matter. jerry > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 11:28:32PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Dangerous is probably overstating the issue a bit ... > > AFAIK the "danger" is that someone boots the machine with an > installer for some other OS, and that installer treats the > disk as unformatted -- hence "obviously" containing nothing > important -- because it doesn't have a recognizable MBR. Yes, that could happen if you run a non-FreeBSD installer that doesn't know about FreeBSD and Dangerously Dedicated disks. jerry > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
AFAIK the "danger" is that someone boots the machine with an installer for some other OS, and that installer treats the disk as unformatted -- hence "obviously" containing nothing important -- because it doesn't have a recognizable MBR. some people rarely boot other OS :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
> Dangerous is probably overstating the issue a bit ... AFAIK the "danger" is that someone boots the machine with an installer for some other OS, and that installer treats the disk as unformatted -- hence "obviously" containing nothing important -- because it doesn't have a recognizable MBR. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 03:58:23AM +1000, Da Rock wrote: > On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 10:49 -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:57:45PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 20:55 -0500, Robert Huff wrote: > > > > Da Rock writes: > > > > > > > > > Excuse my nose in here- I just have a couple of questions. > > > > > > > > > > 1) It IS possible to boot from a dedicated disk? > > > > > > > > Yes. Can't remember the last time I used anything else. > > > > > > So you've never booted from a disk that has been partitioned as a file > > > system? > > > > You are getting your terms scrambled here. > > Partitioning has nothing directly to do with creating a file system. > > You can build a filesystem (with newfs) on just about any piece > > of disk whether it is the whole disk, a slice of the disk or a partition > > of a slice. > > > > Making one of those divisions bootable is also pretty much an > > independant operation too, though as far as I know, only whole > > disks and slices can be made bootable but not partitions - the > > fact that the partition contains the system files is not what > > makes it bootable. Being bootable is dependant on the boot sector > > which gets the control from either the BIOS or an MBR and then finds > > the system partition (/), mounts it (Read Only) and finds system files > > and starts those things running. > > Yes, I would say I'm getting my terms mixed up- fortunately the actual > reality is clear in my head (hard as that is to believe..). > > I have only one more question then: Why would you use "dangerously > dedicated mode" at all? I can only see where it might be useful for > files, no advantage to being a boot sector. The main reason is because a person doesn't want to bother making a slice and partitions - so you can get by without it. It has no relation to being bootable. The BIOS hands off control to what it thinks is a boot sector and it doesn't matter to it whether that is really an MBR that then checks for boot sectors in slices and other MBRs on disks or if it is really a boot sector that starts the reads in the OS files and starts the actual boot. It is all the same. > > It was some time ago that I read up on all this, but what I remembered > was that BSD could use a dedicated disk- but only BSD could read and > write from it and this is dangerous. Maybe what I was reading was > regarding bootable and that was considered dangerous... At any rate I'm > very clear now. Again, nothing to do with making a disk bootable. That is determined by two things: the presence of the bootable flag; a properly constructed boot sector to transfer control to. The 'dangerously dedicated' issue is as you say first; BSD can use the dedicated disk both read and write, but no one else (other OSen) can - for anything. Dangerous is probably overstating the issue a bit, but became the popular terminology. I seem to remember that way back there were some BIOS implementations that had trouble with a 'dangerously dedicated' disk and so would not boot properly, but the main issue is being able to read/write the disk. jerry > > Thanks for all the information guys- cheers > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 10:49 -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:57:45PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 20:55 -0500, Robert Huff wrote: > > > Da Rock writes: > > > > > > > Excuse my nose in here- I just have a couple of questions. > > > > > > > > 1) It IS possible to boot from a dedicated disk? > > > > > > Yes. Can't remember the last time I used anything else. > > > > So you've never booted from a disk that has been partitioned as a file > > system? > > You are getting your terms scrambled here. > Partitioning has nothing directly to do with creating a file system. > You can build a filesystem (with newfs) on just about any piece > of disk whether it is the whole disk, a slice of the disk or a partition > of a slice. > > Making one of those divisions bootable is also pretty much an > independant operation too, though as far as I know, only whole > disks and slices can be made bootable but not partitions - the > fact that the partition contains the system files is not what > makes it bootable. Being bootable is dependant on the boot sector > which gets the control from either the BIOS or an MBR and then finds > the system partition (/), mounts it (Read Only) and finds system files > and starts those things running. Yes, I would say I'm getting my terms mixed up- fortunately the actual reality is clear in my head (hard as that is to believe..). I have only one more question then: Why would you use "dangerously dedicated mode" at all? I can only see where it might be useful for files, no advantage to being a boot sector. It was some time ago that I read up on all this, but what I remembered was that BSD could use a dedicated disk- but only BSD could read and write from it and this is dangerous. Maybe what I was reading was regarding bootable and that was considered dangerous... At any rate I'm very clear now. Thanks for all the information guys- cheers ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
I have never booted a FreeBSD system from a disk which contained any other operating system. I have only used "dangerously dadicated" mode for FreeBSD, except when sysinstall made selecting/implementing that too much work. almost like me except i don't use sysinstall, and manually i don't create slices ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:57:45PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 20:55 -0500, Robert Huff wrote: > > Da Rock writes: > > > > > Excuse my nose in here- I just have a couple of questions. > > > > > > 1) It IS possible to boot from a dedicated disk? > > > > Yes. Can't remember the last time I used anything else. > > So you've never booted from a disk that has been partitioned as a file > system? You are getting your terms scrambled here. Partitioning has nothing directly to do with creating a file system. You can build a filesystem (with newfs) on just about any piece of disk whether it is the whole disk, a slice of the disk or a partition of a slice. Making one of those divisions bootable is also pretty much an independant operation too, though as far as I know, only whole disks and slices can be made bootable but not partitions - the fact that the partition contains the system files is not what makes it bootable. Being bootable is dependant on the boot sector which gets the control from either the BIOS or an MBR and then finds the system partition (/), mounts it (Read Only) and finds system files and starts those things running. jerry > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 11:47:23AM +1000, Da Rock wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 11:39 -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:17:40AM +0100, Polytropon wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:56:44 +0100 (CET), Pieter Donche <[EMAIL > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If FreeBSD is to put on the system as only operating system (Fdisk: > > > > "A = Use Entire disk"), then will the BSD-partitions will show up as > > > > ad0a (/), ad0b (swap), ad0d (/var) etc... correct or not (then what)? > > > > > > You're mixing terminology here. :-) The "use entire disk" will > > > create a slice for FreeBSD covering the complete disk. A slice > > > is what MICROS~1 calls "primary partition". > > > > > > Now the conclusion: Let's say you create a slice on ad0, it will > > > be ad0s1. Now you can create partitions inside this slice as you > > > mentioned it, e. g. ad0s1a = /, ad0s1b = swap, ad0s1d = /tmp, > > > ad0s1e = /var, ad0s1f = /usr and ad0s1g = /home. > > > > True. Too bad MS had to use the same terminology for slices > > as FreeBSD uses for subdivisions of slices. But, it won't be > > undone now, so the confusion will continue. > > > > > But if you're > > > refering to ad0a, ad0b, ad0d etc. you're stating that there's > > > no slice, implying that (if I see this correctly) it isn't possible > > > to boot from that disk. > > > > It is correct that this would imply no slice being created. > > But it is not correct that it could not be bootable. You can > > use bsdlabel to write the boot sector to ad0 instead of ad0s1 > > and it would be bootable - but would be what someone has enjoyed > > describing as a 'dangerously dedicated' disk. FreeBSD can deal > > with it, but other systems cannot. > > > > I don't know if you can do this from sysinstall though. I have > > never tried. But, it can be done by running bsdlabel by hand. > > > > > Of couse, if you would intend to use > > > a (physical) second disk for only the home partition, you could > > > omit the slice and the partition and simply newfs ad1 - but > > > that wasn't your question. > > > > Probably the 'dangerously dedicated' disk is more often used this > > way as an additional (second) drive that is not made bootable. > > > > In that case, it is unlikely that one would mount any of the > > partitions on '/' making it the root filesystem. That may > > be a problem. But, otherwise this looks probable or more likely > > it would have some swap to add to the first disk and all the > > rest in either the a or d partitions mounted as something > > like '/work' or /scratch'. > > > > > > > > ad0 |---| the whole disk > > > ad0s1 \--/ one slice > > > ad0s1X \--/\---/\-/\-/\---/\/ partitions > > > a b d e f g > > > / swap /tmp /var/usr /home mount point > > Excuse my nose in here- I just have a couple of questions. > > 1) It IS possible to boot from a dedicated disk? Yes, as described above. > 2) Does using dedicated mode increase the space available to use? > Partitioning normally takes up space so a HDD loses about 10% of usable > space doesn't it, so the space used by partitioning is can now be used > as filespace. No. Slicing and Partitioning take up negligible space. Building a file system on the disk/slice/partition takes up a chunk. The most is taken up by an 8% (by default) reserve that is held back for root use when a file system is built. jerry > > These questions are all theoretical: I've only read in passing about > dedicated mode, but the use of this would be highly specialised by > extension. > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
Da Rock writes: > > > Excuse my nose in here- I just have a couple of questions. > > > > > > 1) It IS possible to boot from a dedicated disk? > > > >Yes. Can't remember the last time I used anything else. > > So you've never booted from a disk that has been partitioned as a file > system? I have never booted a FreeBSD system from a disk which contained any other operating system. I have only used "dangerously dadicated" mode for FreeBSD, except when sysinstall made selecting/implementing that too much work. Clear? Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 20:55 -0500, Robert Huff wrote: > Da Rock writes: > > > Excuse my nose in here- I just have a couple of questions. > > > > 1) It IS possible to boot from a dedicated disk? > > Yes. Can't remember the last time I used anything else. So you've never booted from a disk that has been partitioned as a file system? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
Da Rock writes: > Excuse my nose in here- I just have a couple of questions. > > 1) It IS possible to boot from a dedicated disk? Yes. Can't remember the last time I used anything else. > 2) Does using dedicated mode increase the space available to use? > Partitioning normally takes up space so a HDD loses about 10% of > usable space doesn't it, so the space used by partitioning is can > now be used as filespace. Not really; certainly not in the scale of state of the market drives. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 11:39 -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:17:40AM +0100, Polytropon wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:56:44 +0100 (CET), Pieter Donche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > If FreeBSD is to put on the system as only operating system (Fdisk: > > > "A = Use Entire disk"), then will the BSD-partitions will show up as > > > ad0a (/), ad0b (swap), ad0d (/var) etc... correct or not (then what)? > > > > You're mixing terminology here. :-) The "use entire disk" will > > create a slice for FreeBSD covering the complete disk. A slice > > is what MICROS~1 calls "primary partition". > > > > Now the conclusion: Let's say you create a slice on ad0, it will > > be ad0s1. Now you can create partitions inside this slice as you > > mentioned it, e. g. ad0s1a = /, ad0s1b = swap, ad0s1d = /tmp, > > ad0s1e = /var, ad0s1f = /usr and ad0s1g = /home. > > True. Too bad MS had to use the same terminology for slices > as FreeBSD uses for subdivisions of slices. But, it won't be > undone now, so the confusion will continue. > > > But if you're > > refering to ad0a, ad0b, ad0d etc. you're stating that there's > > no slice, implying that (if I see this correctly) it isn't possible > > to boot from that disk. > > It is correct that this would imply no slice being created. > But it is not correct that it could not be bootable. You can > use bsdlabel to write the boot sector to ad0 instead of ad0s1 > and it would be bootable - but would be what someone has enjoyed > describing as a 'dangerously dedicated' disk. FreeBSD can deal > with it, but other systems cannot. > > I don't know if you can do this from sysinstall though. I have > never tried. But, it can be done by running bsdlabel by hand. > > > Of couse, if you would intend to use > > a (physical) second disk for only the home partition, you could > > omit the slice and the partition and simply newfs ad1 - but > > that wasn't your question. > > Probably the 'dangerously dedicated' disk is more often used this > way as an additional (second) drive that is not made bootable. > > In that case, it is unlikely that one would mount any of the > partitions on '/' making it the root filesystem. That may > be a problem. But, otherwise this looks probable or more likely > it would have some swap to add to the first disk and all the > rest in either the a or d partitions mounted as something > like '/work' or /scratch'. > > > > > ad0 |---| the whole disk > > ad0s1 \--/ one slice > > ad0s1X \--/\---/\-/\-/\---/\/ partitions > > a b d e f g > > / swap /tmp /var/usr /home mount point Excuse my nose in here- I just have a couple of questions. 1) It IS possible to boot from a dedicated disk? 2) Does using dedicated mode increase the space available to use? Partitioning normally takes up space so a HDD loses about 10% of usable space doesn't it, so the space used by partitioning is can now be used as filespace. These questions are all theoretical: I've only read in passing about dedicated mode, but the use of this would be highly specialised by extension. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:53:23 +0100 (CET), Pieter Donche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know / is the "root partition", but /root is the home-directory of > the user root (/etc/passwd: root:*:0:0:Charlie &:/root:/bin/csh). > I doubt this will ever be needed to be large? There is no special advice about what /root should contain. As you mentioned correctly, this content belongs to the system administrator "root". In the most cases I've seen, root stores a backup of configuration files and useful scripts that no one else should be able to use. And when you take into mind that many users use the sudo command instead of logging in as root, there's less use for this directory. My thought: It won't get large. > If its not large > fsck neither will spend much time in it. So I guess it's just safe > not to make this a separate BSD-partiton ? No separate partition, correct. It's okay to make / at 1 GB max, and fsck won't run for long. > Yes, but it's hard to find out what is best... I'm constantly > swinged between the one (/ including /tmp /var /usr) and the > other (all separate) option ... In fact, there is no "the best", it completely depends on what you're going to do with the system. It has been explained before, but I'd like to mention some advantages of the "partitions approach" and the "one partition approach": The first one allows you to dump / restore data partition-wise, but when a partition is occupied 100%, the trouble starts. You don't have this problem when you have everything on one partition, but a "runaway disk space consumer" (e. g. a faulty program) can occupy all disk space causing problems for processes that would like to write to /tmp or /var. Finally, changing the paradigm would usually be combined with a complete re-installation. -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:17:40AM +0100, Polytropon wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:56:44 +0100 (CET), Pieter Donche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > If FreeBSD is to put on the system as only operating system (Fdisk: > > "A = Use Entire disk"), then will the BSD-partitions will show up as > > ad0a (/), ad0b (swap), ad0d (/var) etc... correct or not (then what)? > > You're mixing terminology here. :-) The "use entire disk" will > create a slice for FreeBSD covering the complete disk. A slice > is what MICROS~1 calls "primary partition". > > Now the conclusion: Let's say you create a slice on ad0, it will > be ad0s1. Now you can create partitions inside this slice as you > mentioned it, e. g. ad0s1a = /, ad0s1b = swap, ad0s1d = /tmp, > ad0s1e = /var, ad0s1f = /usr and ad0s1g = /home. True. Too bad MS had to use the same terminology for slices as FreeBSD uses for subdivisions of slices. But, it won't be undone now, so the confusion will continue. > But if you're > refering to ad0a, ad0b, ad0d etc. you're stating that there's > no slice, implying that (if I see this correctly) it isn't possible > to boot from that disk. It is correct that this would imply no slice being created. But it is not correct that it could not be bootable. You can use bsdlabel to write the boot sector to ad0 instead of ad0s1 and it would be bootable - but would be what someone has enjoyed describing as a 'dangerously dedicated' disk. FreeBSD can deal with it, but other systems cannot. I don't know if you can do this from sysinstall though. I have never tried. But, it can be done by running bsdlabel by hand. > Of couse, if you would intend to use > a (physical) second disk for only the home partition, you could > omit the slice and the partition and simply newfs ad1 - but > that wasn't your question. Probably the 'dangerously dedicated' disk is more often used this way as an additional (second) drive that is not made bootable. In that case, it is unlikely that one would mount any of the partitions on '/' making it the root filesystem. That may be a problem. But, otherwise this looks probable or more likely it would have some swap to add to the first disk and all the rest in either the a or d partitions mounted as something like '/work' or /scratch'. > > ad0 |---| the whole disk > ad0s1 \--/ one slice > ad0s1X \--/\---/\-/\-/\---/\/ partitions > a b d e f g > / swap /tmp /var/usr /home mount point Have fun, jerry > > In case of "dual booting", you usually have more than one slice > on your disk, but what happens inside the FreeBSD slice is mostly > the same. > > > > Page 427 of the FreeBSD handbook states that due to the use of 32-bit > > integers to store the number of sectors is limited to 2^32 -1 > > sectors/disk = 2 TB. A layout could be See my other message about this part. > > a / 1Gb, > > b swap, > > d /root 20 Gb, (a /root partition is from an example of someone who > > claims that at boot FreeBSD checks the partions in background except > > for the / partition, by keeping / as small as possible, the time to > > boot can be mimimized .. correct? but will /root ever be something > > big ??) > > No no, / refers to "the root partition". One way of setting > up püartitions is just to have one partition (one root parttion) > and put everything on it, including /tmp, /var, /usr and /home. > Another philosophy is to create partitions designated to their > further use, just as I mentioned it above. > > For /, you would hardly need more than 1 GB. It just contains > the kernel, basal system binaries, the configuration files and > the directories that are mount points for all the other file > systems. Even a 256 MB / partition should be enoung. > > > > e /tmp 20 Gb, > > f /var 20 Gb, > > g /usr 20 Gb > > this leaves 2420 Gb which is more than 2 Tb, so you can't put all > > that in 1 filesystem h /home, you will need to split that in 2 > > BSD-paritions, but since you can't have more that 8 BSD-partitions > > (highest BSD-partition letter is h), you need to give up at least > > one of d, e, f, g. ... correct or not (then what)? > > I quite doubt that FreeBSD's UFS 2 cannot handle a 2 TB partition > as a whole, but because I don't have sch large disks with UFS > (I have ZFS for them), I cannot tell. > > > > > > PS. Corrected subject (was missing). > > -- > Polytropon > >From Magdeburg, Germany > Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 > Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailma
Re: UFS partitioning
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Pieter Donche wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Polytropon wrote: > > > ad0 |---| the whole disk > > ad0s1 \--/ one slice > >ad0s1X \--/\---/\-/\-/\---/\/ partitions > > a b d e f g > > / swap /tmp /var/usr /home mount point > > OK this is clear.. > > >>a / 1Gb, > >>b swap, > >>d /root 20 Gb, (a /root partition is from an example of someone who > >>claims that at boot FreeBSD checks the partions in background except > >>for the / partition, by keeping / as small as possible, the time to > >>boot can be mimimized .. correct? but will /root ever be something > >>big ??) > > > >No no, / refers to "the root partition". One way of setting > >up partitions is just to have one partition (one root parttion) > >and put everything on it, including /tmp, /var, /usr and /home. > > I know / is the "root partition", but /root is the home-directory of > the user root (/etc/passwd: root:*:0:0:Charlie &:/root:/bin/csh). > I doubt this will ever be needed to be large? If its not large > fsck neither will spend much time in it. So I guess it's just safe > not to make this a separate BSD-partiton ? You want to leave the /root directory in the root filesystem (partition eg ad0s1a or ad0a).Otherwise you could end up with your tail in a crack at just the wrong time. And, yes, don't put a lot of stuff in that /root directory. > > >Another philosophy is to create partitions designated to their > >further use, just as I mentioned it above. > > Yes, but it's hard to find out what is best... I'm constantly > swinged between the one (/ including /tmp /var /usr) and the > other (all separate) option ... Depends a lot on how you use the system. Basically, you learn by experience of how that system is being used. That can change over time too and mean you want to shift your structure to something else - especially if you add more disk or start supporting some additional server service, etc. I generally suggest dividing into /, swap, /tmp, /usr, /var, /home in the beginning and then see how things go. Typically /var and /home are the ones that will grow, especially if you have a database which by default lives in /var and/or if you put home directories and web sites in /home which is what I suggest. As for ZFS issues, I don't know because I haven't had a place to play with it yet. Someday I will have a spare machine and extra disks... jerry > > >>this leaves 2420 Gb which is more than 2 Tb, so you can't put all > >>that in 1 filesystem h /home, you will need to split that in 2 > >>BSD-paritions, but since you can't have more that 8 BSD-partitions > >>(highest BSD-partition letter is h), you need to give up at least > >>one of d, e, f, g. ... correct or not (then what)? > > > >I quite doubt that FreeBSD's UFS 2 cannot handle a 2 TB partition > >as a whole, but because I don't have sch large disks with UFS > >(I have ZFS for them), I cannot tell. > > Anyone else can tell? > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
ad0a (/), ad0b (swap), ad0d (/var) etc... correct or not (then what)? You're mixing terminology here. :-) The "use entire disk" will create a slice for FreeBSD covering the complete disk. A slice is what MICROS~1 calls "primary partition". Now the conclusion: Let's say you create a slice on ad0, it will be ad0s1. Now you can create partitions inside this slice as you by not using sysinstall (simple manual install) there is no need to create slices at all just disklabel works fine. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Polytropon wrote: ad0 |---| the whole disk ad0s1 \--/ one slice ad0s1X \--/\---/\-/\-/\---/\/ partitions a b d e f g / swap /tmp /var/usr /home mount point OK this is clear.. a / 1Gb, b swap, d /root 20 Gb, (a /root partition is from an example of someone who claims that at boot FreeBSD checks the partions in background except for the / partition, by keeping / as small as possible, the time to boot can be mimimized .. correct? but will /root ever be something big ??) No no, / refers to "the root partition". One way of setting up partitions is just to have one partition (one root parttion) and put everything on it, including /tmp, /var, /usr and /home. I know / is the "root partition", but /root is the home-directory of the user root (/etc/passwd: root:*:0:0:Charlie &:/root:/bin/csh). I doubt this will ever be needed to be large? If its not large fsck neither will spend much time in it. So I guess it's just safe not to make this a separate BSD-partiton ? Another philosophy is to create partitions designated to their further use, just as I mentioned it above. Yes, but it's hard to find out what is best... I'm constantly swinged between the one (/ including /tmp /var /usr) and the other (all separate) option ... this leaves 2420 Gb which is more than 2 Tb, so you can't put all that in 1 filesystem h /home, you will need to split that in 2 BSD-paritions, but since you can't have more that 8 BSD-partitions (highest BSD-partition letter is h), you need to give up at least one of d, e, f, g. ... correct or not (then what)? I quite doubt that FreeBSD's UFS 2 cannot handle a 2 TB partition as a whole, but because I don't have sch large disks with UFS (I have ZFS for them), I cannot tell. Anyone else can tell? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: UFS partitioning
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:56:44 +0100 (CET), Pieter Donche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If FreeBSD is to put on the system as only operating system (Fdisk: > "A = Use Entire disk"), then will the BSD-partitions will show up as > ad0a (/), ad0b (swap), ad0d (/var) etc... correct or not (then what)? You're mixing terminology here. :-) The "use entire disk" will create a slice for FreeBSD covering the complete disk. A slice is what MICROS~1 calls "primary partition". Now the conclusion: Let's say you create a slice on ad0, it will be ad0s1. Now you can create partitions inside this slice as you mentioned it, e. g. ad0s1a = /, ad0s1b = swap, ad0s1d = /tmp, ad0s1e = /var, ad0s1f = /usr and ad0s1g = /home. But if you're refering to ad0a, ad0b, ad0d etc. you're stating that there's no slice, implying that (if I see this correctly) it isn't possible to boot from that disk. Of couse, if you would intend to use a (physical) second disk for only the home partition, you could omit the slice and the partition and simply newfs ad1 - but that wasn't your question. ad0 |---| the whole disk ad0s1 \--/ one slice ad0s1X \--/\---/\-/\-/\---/\/ partitions a b d e f g / swap /tmp /var/usr /home mount point In case of "dual booting", you usually have more than one slice on your disk, but what happens inside the FreeBSD slice is mostly the same. > Page 427 of the FreeBSD handbook states that due to the use of 32-bit > integers to store the number of sectors is limited to 2^32 -1 > sectors/disk = 2 TB. A layout could be > a / 1Gb, > b swap, > d /root 20 Gb, (a /root partition is from an example of someone who > claims that at boot FreeBSD checks the partions in background except > for the / partition, by keeping / as small as possible, the time to > boot can be mimimized .. correct? but will /root ever be something > big ??) No no, / refers to "the root partition". One way of setting up püartitions is just to have one partition (one root parttion) and put everything on it, including /tmp, /var, /usr and /home. Another philosophy is to create partitions designated to their further use, just as I mentioned it above. For /, you would hardly need more than 1 GB. It just contains the kernel, basal system binaries, the configuration files and the directories that are mount points for all the other file systems. Even a 256 MB / partition should be enoung. > e /tmp 20 Gb, > f /var 20 Gb, > g /usr 20 Gb > this leaves 2420 Gb which is more than 2 Tb, so you can't put all > that in 1 filesystem h /home, you will need to split that in 2 > BSD-paritions, but since you can't have more that 8 BSD-partitions > (highest BSD-partition letter is h), you need to give up at least > one of d, e, f, g. ... correct or not (then what)? I quite doubt that FreeBSD's UFS 2 cannot handle a 2 TB partition as a whole, but because I don't have sch large disks with UFS (I have ZFS for them), I cannot tell. PS. Corrected subject (was missing). -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
