Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
On 30/08/2013 07:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:21 AM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: On Thu, Aug 29 2013, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:19 PM, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: I have experience with LVM, but not systemd or dracut or initramfs * both grub and grub2 support lvm Does GRUB legacy handles /boot in LVM? I haven't tried that yet. That I don't know. I believe the LVM companion manual that I am seeking and that I used for previous installs advised against /boot on lvm (probably also /lib and others). Perhaps this was simply reflecting no initramfs. Hence any grub issue with /boot on lvm didn't arise. allan No. Grub legacy does not support LVM for the /boot. That's why I have it there. UEFI only understands FAT. Which means you need to have a boot partition outside of LVM for that. Good to know, thanks. Another reason not to use LVM I guess. Why not use LVM? Yes, it is some added complexity you need to understand but it stays out of your way till you need it, doesn't affect disk efficiency in any significant way and just works. When you need the services it offers they are there and until then just use mkfs and mount the block device it offers. Unless you have all your filesystems part of / itself, you run the risk of hitting hard limits rapidly and LVM gives you a proper way to deal with that, unlike using rigid partitions directly. I see a small amount of new code to understand followed by huge benefits. The best way to deal with this actual issue is the ZFS/btrfs approach but those aren't usable for the masses yet, whereas LVM is. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
On 30/08/2013 07:21, J. Roeleveld wrote: Canek, LVs can be resized while the system is running. It also depends on the actual filesystem, but extending can be done online with all filesystems I am aware of. Shrinking is not possible with all. no fs can be reduced whilst mounted, most especially the inode based ones This makes reducing / somewhat tricky as requires system downtime. The usual approach sysadmins use is to estimate size conservatively and make them larger as needed (effectively avoiding reducing any as much as possible). -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
Alan McKinnon wrote: On 30/08/2013 07:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:21 AM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: No. Grub legacy does not support LVM for the /boot. That's why I have it there. UEFI only understands FAT. Which means you need to have a boot partition outside of LVM for that. Good to know, thanks. Another reason not to use LVM I guess. Why not use LVM? Yes, it is some added complexity you need to understand but it stays out of your way till you need it, doesn't affect disk efficiency in any significant way and just works. When you need the services it offers they are there and until then just use mkfs and mount the block device it offers. Unless you have all your filesystems part of / itself, you run the risk of hitting hard limits rapidly and LVM gives you a proper way to deal with that, unlike using rigid partitions directly. I see a small amount of new code to understand followed by huge benefits. The best way to deal with this actual issue is the ZFS/btrfs approach but those aren't usable for the masses yet, whereas LVM is. OP, I been using LVM for everything but /boot and / for a while now. I have to say, it is really really nice to have. When something needs more space, it is easily resized and life carries on. Just pick the places where you can use it without adding any other complexities you don't want. Example, don't want a init thingy, put / on a regular partition and normal file system, just make sure you won't fill it up for a very long time. Of course /boot has to be on a regular file system too. Hope that helps. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
Alan McKinnon wrote: On 30/08/2013 03:45, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: On Thu, Aug 29 2013, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:19 PM, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: I have experience with LVM, but not systemd or dracut or initramfs * both grub and grub2 support lvm Does GRUB legacy handles /boot in LVM? I haven't tried that yet. That I don't know. I believe the LVM companion manual that I am seeking and that I used for previous installs advised against /boot on lvm (probably also /lib and others). Perhaps this was simply reflecting no initramfs. Hence any grub issue with /boot on lvm didn't arise. I believe this is correct grub-legacy never did directly support reading lvm volumes, you must use an initramfs That is my understanding as well. I switched from it a while ago but almost certain it only supports regular file systems like ext2, ext4 etc etc. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
[gentoo-user] Repository 'x-portage' is missing masters attribute in '/usr/local/portage/metadata/layout.conf'
What does the title mean?I always seem it when running emerge,but the file /usr/local/portage/metadata/layout.conf does not exist.
Re: [gentoo-user] Repository 'x-portage' is missing masters attribute in '/usr/local/portage/metadata/layout.conf'
On 30/08/2013 11:14, 东方巽雷 wrote: What does the title mean?I always seem it when running emerge,but the file /usr/local/portage/metadata/layout.conf does not exist. That's the entire problem, the file does not exist so the required information in it cannot be there. The masters attribute is required for overlays (even personal local ones). Use layout.conf from $PORTDIR as a guide. The file looks something like this: masters = gentoo # Use new hashes manifest-hashes = SHA256 SHA512 WHIRLPOOL # Do not update changelogs update-changelog = false # Use thin manifests thin-manifests = true # Dont sign thinn manifests. There is no current policy for git commit signing sign-manifests = false # Make egencache generate newer (more reliable) # md5-dict cache format (see bug #409445). -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] grub2 or kernel config - unable to properly boot [CLOSED]
2013/8/29 Francisco Ares fra...@gmail.com
2013/8/29 Gregory Shearman zek...@gmail.com
In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote:
search for CONSOLE in this file and find:
# exec ${CONSOLE} ${CONSOLE} 21
Just remove the hash at the start of the line, rebuild my initramfs
and it is ready to go.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Thanks Gregory.
I really would like to find that partition number limitation on
genkernel
in the docs.
I've never had that problem but then I've always made /boot my first
partition.
I have already had that splash screen problem, very interesting your
solution. That's a big reason I love Gentoo, always learning something
new.
Funny thing is that checking the file you've mentioned in this new
system,
it has no hash at that line (line number 13, right?). On the other
working
system, the same, no hash.
No, the line is 149.
You see, I've got this as part of my kernel command line:
console=tty1
The code section from the linuxrc file is part of the kernel command
line check as part of a bash(sh) do loop:
CONSOLE=*|console=*)
CONSOLE=${x#*=}
CONSOLE=$(basename ${CONSOLE})
# exec ${CONSOLE} ${CONSOLE} 21
If you change your console= value on the command line then the new
console choice is redirected. If the hash is in place then the
console is not redirected and usually you get console output writing all
over your splash screen.
I'm using genkernel-3.4.45.1 on both systems, perhaps not the same as
you.
Regarding that last issue, the message complaining that the root
partition
is not a valid block device _is still there_, only masked by the splash
(which now is verbose).
I was optimistic in believing everything would work as expected once I
found that detail.
I'm not sure I can help you here. My root filesystem is on an LVM volume
(as are all the rest of my filesystems except for my /boot partition.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Thanks, Gregory.
Best regards,
Francisco
For all who might be interested, I've reinstalled/rebuilt/reemerged
everything from stage3 up during the night (I've saved the world file, it
helped a lot).
Now everything works. I have a backup copy of all file system when things
were not working, and I will do another one now. When I get some time to
spare, I will compare both and try to figure out what happened.
Thanks to all!
Francisco
Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64
On 2013-08-28 7:24 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:04:39 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: So... is 2.2 *ever* going to go stable??? Give it a chance! It's only just come out of rc. Until recently it wasn't even available in testing without umasking. Ok, sorry, I totally missed the significance, didn't even notice that it meant it had come out of RC. I was just going by the fact that it has been around for - what, years? - with never-ending beta/rc releases, and I just thought this was another new rc or something... So, glad to hear it might actually be getting close now... :)
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/08/2013 07:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:21 AM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: On Thu, Aug 29 2013, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:19 PM, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: I have experience with LVM, but not systemd or dracut or initramfs * both grub and grub2 support lvm Does GRUB legacy handles /boot in LVM? I haven't tried that yet. That I don't know. I believe the LVM companion manual that I am seeking and that I used for previous installs advised against /boot on lvm (probably also /lib and others). Perhaps this was simply reflecting no initramfs. Hence any grub issue with /boot on lvm didn't arise. allan No. Grub legacy does not support LVM for the /boot. That's why I have it there. UEFI only understands FAT. Which means you need to have a boot partition outside of LVM for that. Good to know, thanks. Another reason not to use LVM I guess. Why not use LVM? I just don't see the point. I have never used it, and now that I have a test system, I don't see any advantage for my particular use cases. Yes, it is some added complexity you need to understand but it stays out of your way till you need it, doesn't affect disk efficiency in any significant way and just works. When you need the services it offers they are there and until then just use mkfs and mount the block device it offers. My point exactly; I have never needed its services in 18 years using Linux (servers and workstation). Again, in my use cases. Unless you have all your filesystems part of / itself, you run the risk of hitting hard limits rapidly and LVM gives you a proper way to deal with that, unlike using rigid partitions directly. I see a small amount of new code to understand followed by huge benefits. I understand the code all right, as I commented to Allan I had no problems installing a systemd+LVM machine (with even /boot in LVM). I just don't see the benefits (in my use cases). The best way to deal with this actual issue is the ZFS/btrfs approach but those aren't usable for the masses yet, whereas LVM is. btrfs sounds cool (specially in SSD), but I'm also waiting for it to be stable enough. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
On 2013-08-30 3:16 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Example, don't want a init thingy, put / on a regular partition and normal file system, just make sure you won't fill it up for a very long time. Of course /boot has to be on a regular file system too. Well, apparently this now includes /usr, as from what I gleaned from the earlier thread, there is no guarantee even eudev will continue to support separate /usr partition in future (since gentoo council has formally voted to NOT support it without an initramfs)...
Re: [gentoo-user] kernel with DRM = blank screen
On Thursday 29 Aug 2013 09:18:31 Helmut Jarausch wrote: Hi, I have an old HP 625 laptop with an ATI RS880 HDMI Audio [Radeon HD 4200 Series] chip on board. The xf86-video-ati driver needs DRM (direct rendering support) in the kernel. Unfortunately, if (and only if) I enable DRM (built in or as module) in a recent kernel like gentoo-sources-3.10.9, the kernel freezes with a blank screen during boot, i.e. long before xorg-server is started (only by hand in my case). So, what can I try to fix this (some IOAPIC switches on the boot command line)? Unless you want to venture into a trial and error kernel line fest, it may help if you post the point at which the kernel blanks out with any message just prior to the screen freezing. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 2013-08-28 7:12 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Whether the code is compile in or a module makes no difference wrt licenses as far as I know. There's no limitation on*running* the code, you can fetch and patch and edit and compile and run all you want and have it on as many of your (or the company's) machines as you want - neither license interferes with your right to do that. You may not redistribute the code though. So, can you answer me this... Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd party overlay *not* part of the official gentoo portage tree that contained *only* the zfs stuff, and when this overlay was installed combined with a zfs keyword for the kernel, portage would then pull in the required files, and automagically build a kernel with an up to date version of zfs properly and fully integrated? Would this not work, *and* have no problems with licensing?
Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo on a kvm - can't install kernel sources
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 07:33:03PM +0400, the wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/25/13 17:51, Michael Mair-Keimberger wrote: Hi List, Since a few days i'm trying to install gentoo on a kvm guest from edis.at. They support to boot from a gentoo minimal live-cd in order to install your own gentoo. The system has 5GB storage and 256MB ram. Actually that should be enough for a minimal installation. However, till now i couldn't get over that point where i'm trying to install the kernel sources... IMHO, 5Gb is not enough, have you tried df -h? How about putting the sources into a squashfs? I've been doing so with /usr/portage on my netbook with its small HDD for a long time now to save a couple o’ 100 megs. Since /usr/src will then be read-only, you’ll have to prepare the image outside of the system, which also means that you can’t use portage’s *sources on the system in question. My 3.10 vanilla sources of about 605 megs (du -sch) get steamed down to a 120 MB image. -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any Facebook service. GNU jokes are not UNIX jokes. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-08-30 3:16 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Example, don't want a init thingy, put / on a regular partition and normal file system, just make sure you won't fill it up for a very long time. Of course /boot has to be on a regular file system too. Well, apparently this now includes /usr, as from what I gleaned from the earlier thread, there is no guarantee even eudev will continue to support separate /usr partition in future (since gentoo council has formally voted to NOT support it without an initramfs)... udev/eudev has nothing to do with it. It's the init systems (as in both systemd and OpenRC) the ones that are pushing/have pushed for dropping support for it. In Gentoo, the move is being championed by William Hubs: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2946 He's the OpenRC maintainer. NOBODY who has actually worked on the problem wants to support a separate /usr without an initramfs, because it makes no sense. So it doesn't matter if you use udev, eudev, mdev or even a static /dev directory; no init system wants to support a separate /usr without an initramfs. And for a good reason: is braindead. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
On 2013-08-30 10:28 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: udev/eudev has nothing to do with it. It's the init systems (as in both systemd and OpenRC) the ones that are pushing/have pushed for dropping support for it. In Gentoo, the move is being championed by William Hubs: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2946 He's the OpenRC maintainer. NOBODY who has actually worked on the problem wants to support a separate /usr without an initramfs, because it makes no sense. Please stop making such false statements. It only makes no sense because of *other* decisions being made that want to force files critical to booting to be placed into /usr. There is no *philosophical* reason that it 'makes no sense. So it doesn't matter if you use udev, eudev, mdev or even a static /dev directory; no init system wants to support a separate /usr without an initramfs. Just fyi... the *only* problem that I have with this is that I have an *existing* system that has a separate /usr, and it only has that separate /usr because when I followed the original gentoo installation handbook back in 2003 or so, it actually had a separate /usr in the example directory structure layout, so I thought it was the official gentoo *recommendation* to do it that way. If I wasn't in this predicament, I'd just make a mental note to never install /usr to a separate partition and be done with it. And for a good reason: is braindead. Again - it is only braindead if you accept the basic premise that it 'makes sense' to put files critical to the boot process into /usr. Personally, I think it only 'makes sense' to put files critical to the boot process into gasp! /boot.
Re: [gentoo-user] Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-08-28 7:12 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Whether the code is compile in or a module makes no difference wrt licenses as far as I know. There's no limitation on*running* the code, you can fetch and patch and edit and compile and run all you want and have it on as many of your (or the company's) machines as you want - neither license interferes with your right to do that. You may not redistribute the code though. So, can you answer me this... Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd party overlay *not* part of the official gentoo portage tree that contained *only* the zfs stuff, and when this overlay was installed combined with a zfs keyword for the kernel, portage would then pull in the required files, and automagically build a kernel with an up to date version of zfs properly and fully integrated? Would this not work, *and* have no problems with licensing? there is no problem with licensing in that case. The ebuild could even go in the portage tree, as Gentoo is not redistributing sources when it publishes an ebuild. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
On 2013-08-30 10:38 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/08/2013 16:37, Tanstaafl wrote: Personally, I think it only 'makes sense' to put files critical to the boot process into gasp! /boot. It's not the boot process. It's the startup-to-early-init process. Or put another way, the entire start process up to the point where all of /usr is reliably available. boot is used here as very loose slang Understood and point taken, but I think my point remains nevertheless...
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
On Fri, Aug 30 2013, J. Roeleveld wrote: gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: I want to reinstall an old system to have combined root+usr. I have always used an lvm installation guide that was a companion to the handbook. That is it would tell you how to augment each handbook installation chapter for lvm (actually lvm2). I can't find this documentation now on gentoo.org. There is a big wiki page, but that is different as are daniel's 2-volume learning linux lvm. The closest I found is the raid+lvm quick install guide, but i would be happier with the one I have used often in the past. Any clues (I am emotionally prepared to learn that it is right there on the installation web page, but my eyes and search commands are deficient). thanks, allan Allan, Use the raid+LVM guide and skip all the raid steps. -- Joost Yes, that is what I will be doing; but it is not the same as the companion and hence less familiar to me. Also the wiki certainly does help. I haven't studied the raid+LVM closely yet but a quick look didn't reveal how to interrupt the installation, shut off the machine, and continue later. Nonetheless, it is doubtless all there; just a loss of familiarity. thanks, allan
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-08-30 10:28 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: udev/eudev has nothing to do with it. It's the init systems (as in both systemd and OpenRC) the ones that are pushing/have pushed for dropping support for it. In Gentoo, the move is being championed by William Hubs: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2946 He's the OpenRC maintainer. NOBODY who has actually worked on the problem wants to support a separate /usr without an initramfs, because it makes no sense. Please stop making such false statements. It only makes no sense because of *other* decisions being made that want to force files critical to booting to be placed into /usr. There is no *philosophical* reason that it 'makes no sense. I agree; it's because of technical reasons that it makes no sense. So it doesn't matter if you use udev, eudev, mdev or even a static /dev directory; no init system wants to support a separate /usr without an initramfs. Just fyi... the *only* problem that I have with this is that I have an *existing* system that has a separate /usr, and it only has that separate /usr because when I followed the original gentoo installation handbook back in 2003 or so, it actually had a separate /usr in the example directory structure layout, so I thought it was the official gentoo *recommendation* to do it that way. If I wasn't in this predicament, I'd just make a mental note to never install /usr to a separate partition and be done with it. And for a good reason: is braindead. Again - it is only braindead if you accept the basic premise that it 'makes sense' to put files critical to the boot process into /usr. Personally, I think it only 'makes sense' to put files critical to the boot process into gasp! /boot. What it's critical in the *general case*? It's NFS critical? It's bluetooth critical? It's the network critical? It's LVM critical? Are you going to put all of that in /boot or in /? An initramfs covers all those cases (and many more). It doesn't matter if some really simple cases could possible-perhaps-if-the-stars-align-maybe work; the devs cannot complicate the general case just to keep supporting some simple cases. The devs want a *GENERAL* solution, that works for everybody. That solution is an initramfs. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
On 30/08/2013 16:37, Tanstaafl wrote: And for a good reason: is braindead. Again - it is only braindead if you accept the basic premise that it 'makes sense' to put files critical to the boot process into /usr. Personally, I think it only 'makes sense' to put files critical to the boot process into gasp! /boot. It's not the boot process. It's the startup-to-early-init process. Or put another way, the entire start process up to the point where all of /usr is reliably available. boot is used here as very loose slang -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Integrated ZFS for Gentoo - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 2013-08-30 10:34 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote: Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd party overlay *not* part of the official gentoo portage tree that contained *only* the zfs stuff, and when this overlay was installed combined with a zfs keyword for the kernel, portage would then pull in the required files, and automagically build a kernel with an up to date version of zfs properly and fully integrated? Would this not work, *and* have no problems with licensing? there is no problem with licensing in that case. The ebuild could even go in the portage tree, as Gentoo is not redistributing sources when it publishes an ebuild. Thanks Alan! Just the answer I wanted. Ok, so... how hard would this be then? What would the chances be that this could actually happen? I'll happily go open a bug for it if you think the work would be minimal... It seems to me that I can't be the only one who would like to see this happen?
Re: [gentoo-user] HA-Proxy or iptables?
On 29/08/2013 08:54, Pandu Poluan wrote: Hello list! Here's my scenario: Currently there is a server performing 2 functions; one runs on, let's say, port 2000, and another one runs on port 3000. Due to some necessary changes, especially the need to (1) provide more resource for a function, and (2) delegate management of the functions to different teams, we are going to split the server into two. The problem is: Many users -- spread among 80+ branches throughout the country -- access the server using IP Address instead of DNS name. So, my plan was to leave port 2000's application on the original server, implement port 3000's application on a new server, and have all access to port 3000 of the original server to be redirected to same port on the new server. I can implement this using iptables SNAT DNAT ... or I can use HA-Proxy. Can anyone provide some benefit / drawback analysis on either solution? I don't have any practical experience of using HA-Proxy. However, if you are sizing up Netfilter as a solution then I would suggest that you also consider Linux Virtual Server (LVS). It provides a lightweight NAT implementation and scales well. It is natively administered with the ipvsadm tool but I would recommend using ldirectord or such: http://horms.net/projects/ldirectord/ --Kerin
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: On Fri, Aug 30 2013, J. Roeleveld wrote: gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: I want to reinstall an old system to have combined root+usr. I have always used an lvm installation guide that was a companion to the handbook. That is it would tell you how to augment each handbook installation chapter for lvm (actually lvm2). I can't find this documentation now on gentoo.org. There is a big wiki page, but that is different as are daniel's 2-volume learning linux lvm. The closest I found is the raid+lvm quick install guide, but i would be happier with the one I have used often in the past. Any clues (I am emotionally prepared to learn that it is right there on the installation web page, but my eyes and search commands are deficient). thanks, allan Allan, Use the raid+LVM guide and skip all the raid steps. -- Joost Yes, that is what I will be doing; but it is not the same as the companion and hence less familiar to me. Also the wiki certainly does help. I haven't studied the raid+LVM closely yet but a quick look didn't reveal how to interrupt the installation, shut off the machine, and continue later. Nonetheless, it is doubtless all there; just a loss of familiarity. thanks, allan To continue, see my other email. # vgchange -ay That command will enable all the LVs it can find. It works for me on all recent (last 2 years at least) installs with the sysrescuecd. -- Joost -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [gentoo-user] where did lvm installation guide go?
On 30/08/2013 17:18, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30 2013, J. Roeleveld wrote:
gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
I want to reinstall an old system to have combined root+usr.
I have always used an lvm installation guide that was a companion to
the handbook. That is it would tell you how to augment each handbook
installation chapter for lvm (actually lvm2).
I can't find this documentation now on gentoo.org. There is a big wiki
page, but that is different as are daniel's 2-volume learning linux
lvm.
The closest I found is the raid+lvm quick install guide, but i would be
happier with the one I have used often in the past.
Any clues (I am emotionally prepared to learn that it is right there on
the installation web page, but my eyes and search commands are
deficient).
thanks,
allan
Allan,
Use the raid+LVM guide and skip all the raid steps.
--
Joost
Yes, that is what I will be doing; but it is not the same as the companion
and hence less familiar to me. Also the wiki certainly does help.
I haven't studied the raid+LVM closely yet but a quick look didn't
reveal how to interrupt the installation, shut off the machine, and
continue later.
the only difference is activating your LVs just before you need to mount
them (before doing the chroot):
vgchange -a y
everything else stays the same. Instead of mounting /dev/sdxy at
/mnt/gentoo/..., you will mount /dev/mapper/${LV}
Nonetheless, it is doubtless all there; just a loss of familiarity.
thanks,
allan
--
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: Integrated ZFS for Gentoo - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 30/08/2013 16:44, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-08-30 10:34 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote: Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd party overlay *not* part of the official gentoo portage tree that contained *only* the zfs stuff, and when this overlay was installed combined with a zfs keyword for the kernel, portage would then pull in the required files, and automagically build a kernel with an up to date version of zfs properly and fully integrated? Would this not work, *and* have no problems with licensing? there is no problem with licensing in that case. The ebuild could even go in the portage tree, as Gentoo is not redistributing sources when it publishes an ebuild. Thanks Alan! Just the answer I wanted. Ok, so... how hard would this be then? What would the chances be that this could actually happen? I'll happily go open a bug for it if you think the work would be minimal... It seems to me that I can't be the only one who would like to see this happen? Ahem, Mr Bothwick! Our friend with the thing about free lunches needs you to demonstrate your penmanship, considering you have some proven results in this area. :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: Integrated ZFS for Gentoo - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On Friday 30 Aug 2013 15:44:35 Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-08-30 10:34 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote: Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd party overlay *not* part of the official gentoo portage tree that contained *only* the zfs stuff, and when this overlay was installed combined with a zfs keyword for the kernel, portage would then pull in the required files, and automagically build a kernel with an up to date version of zfs properly and fully integrated? Would this not work, *and* have no problems with licensing? there is no problem with licensing in that case. The ebuild could even go in the portage tree, as Gentoo is not redistributing sources when it publishes an ebuild. Thanks Alan! Just the answer I wanted. Ok, so... how hard would this be then? What would the chances be that this could actually happen? I'll happily go open a bug for it if you think the work would be minimal... It seems to me that I can't be the only one who would like to see this happen? Nope! I will vote for you. ;-) -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 08/27/2013 12:59 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: The GPL is in conflict with the law Joerg, which law are you talking about? I've never understood the problems surrounding the many and various available software licenses, and I don't think I ever will understand them. But I'm still trying :)
[gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On 08/30/2013 04:05 PM, walt wrote: On 08/27/2013 12:59 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: The GPL is in conflict with the law Joerg, which law are you talking about? Oops, I see you've already answered my question. Please ignore.
[gentoo-user] Re: The NVIDIA/Kernel fiasco -- is it safe to sync yet?
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 23:12:39 -0500
»Q« boxc...@gmx.net wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 00:15:40 +0200
Paul Klos gen...@klos2day.nl wrote:
Op vrijdag 23 augustus 2013 14:09:59 schreef Randy Westlund:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 10:45:46AM -0700, Chris Stankevitz
wrote:
Are regular nvidia users who run a completely stable system
(with only stable nvidia-drivers and stable gentoo-sources)
affected by any of this?
I believe so. I run testing, but this just cleared up for me a
few days ago when I went to kernel 3.10.7 (stable). I'm currently
running kernel 3.10.9 and nvidia-drivers 325.15 (both testing),
which works just fine. Try it and see what happens.
Updated to gentoo-sources 3.10.7 (stable) today. I had (stable)
x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-319.32 which failed rebuilding. After
keywording x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers I'm on 325.15 as well. Seems
to be fine so far.
Same here, amd64
It looks like maybe the best way to tell which ebuilds support which
kernels is to read the conditional for the ewarn message in each
ebuild.
This script works with the nvidia-drivers ebuilds currently in the
tree. If the format of the ewarn messages changes, it won't.
#!/bin/sh
# This quick-and-dirty script checks the available nvidia-drivers
# ebuilds to show you which are meant to build against which kernel
# versions.
# If you use grep without pcre support, you get to rewrite the grep line.
[ -f /etc/make.conf ] . /etc/make.conf
[ -f /etc/portage/make.conf ] . /etc/portage/make.conf
echo
for ebuildversion in $(ls ${PORTDIR}/x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers/*.ebuild)
do
echo ${ebuildversion##*/} supports
grep -Po 'sys-kernel.*\d' ${ebuildversion}
echo
done
exit
[gentoo-user] crond: time disparity detected (on hibernate and wake-up)
Whenever I hibernate or do a wake-up from hibernation, I always get messages about a crond time disparity detected. It's usually 580 or 602 minutes. But the clock appears to be correct within a few seconds after wake-up. I'm in Eastern time, running local time... [i660][waltdnes][~] cat /etc/timezone Canada/Eastern -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
[gentoo-user] Re: crond: time disparity detected (on hibernate and wake-up)
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 21:46:37 -0400 Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: Whenever I hibernate or do a wake-up from hibernation, I always get messages about a crond time disparity detected. It's usually 580 or 602 minutes. But the clock appears to be correct within a few seconds after wake-up. I'm in Eastern time, running local time... If you're using sys-power/hibernate-script, having it stop and restart crond might help. I use fcron, so in a conf file for hibernate I have RestartServices fcron
Re: Integrated ZFS for Gentoo - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Optional /usr merge in Gentoo
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday 30 Aug 2013 15:44:35 Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-08-30 10:34 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote: Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd party overlay *not* part of the official gentoo portage tree that contained *only* the zfs stuff, and when this overlay was installed combined with a zfs keyword for the kernel, portage would then pull in the required files, and automagically build a kernel with an up to date version of zfs properly and fully integrated? Would this not work, *and* have no problems with licensing? there is no problem with licensing in that case. The ebuild could even go in the portage tree, as Gentoo is not redistributing sources when it publishes an ebuild. Thanks Alan! Just the answer I wanted. Ok, so... how hard would this be then? What would the chances be that this could actually happen? I'll happily go open a bug for it if you think the work would be minimal... It seems to me that I can't be the only one who would like to see this happen? Nope! I will vote for you. ;-) -- Regards, Mick Sounds like an awful lot of trouble for a problem that's already solved by installing sys-kernel/module-rebuild and running module-rebuild rebuild after every kernel update, which is how nvidia, broadcom, and other kernel modules are dealt painlessly with anyways... -- This email is:[ ] actionable [x] fyi[ ] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none
