On Friday 21 December 2007 18:46:52 Mick wrote:
The problem with some distros installation scripts is that they are
trying to be too clever for their own good. As a result they some times
behave like MS Windows and unless you whip them into submission they
could trash your system!
Exactly
Am Donnerstag, 20. Dezember 2007 schrieb Benjamen R. Meyer:
I don't like using NFS much...guess I'll have to change that as I would
like to centralize my server as a one-stop shop for usernames and
passwords for the few systems on my network - server, desktop, and a
laptop at present, but
On Dec 20, 2007 10:31 PM, Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unlike commonly perceived wisdom I don't think that LVM is a panacea for all
ills, or a necessity as such. It is however bloody convenient, especially on
a growing fs. A server that is not expected to change much in size, probably
does
Galevsky wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 10:31 PM, Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unlike commonly perceived wisdom I don't think that LVM is a panacea for all
ills, or a necessity as such. It is however bloody convenient, especially on
a growing fs. A server that is not expected to change much in
On Friday 21 December 2007 10:00:40 Galevsky wrote:
I am interested in your advice [that] LVM is not the universal solution
for partition management,
In the case under discussion, namely a stable server, I wouldn't challenge
any advice to use LVM, but I was using it until recently on this
On Friday 21 December 2007, Benjamen R. Meyer wrote:
Galevsky wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 10:31 PM, Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unlike commonly perceived wisdom I don't think that LVM is a panacea for
all ills, or a necessity as such. It is however bloody convenient,
especially on a growing
On Friday 21 December 2007, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Friday 21 December 2007 10:00:40 Galevsky wrote:
I am interested in your advice [that] LVM is not the universal solution
for partition management,
In the case under discussion, namely a stable server, I wouldn't challenge
any advice to
Benjamen R. Meyer wrote:
I set up a server system a little while ago, and in performing updates
to portage it ran out of disk space as I didn't quite allow enough space
on the root partition (3.8 GB). As a result, I took a partition that I
had cleaned up (this was from a rebuild of a system that
I won't answer you with a size since its mainly depends on your own
needs, but don't you know that solutions like lvm or evms provide lots
of flexibility to manage your HD resources ? I advise you to look at
lvm howto. It allows you to add/remove/move/enlarge your partitions as
you need in a truly
On Thursday 20 December 2007 10:50:33 Benjamen R. Meyer wrote:
I set up a server system a little while ago, and in performing updates
to portage it ran out of disk space as I didn't quite allow enough space
on the root partition (3.8 GB).
That's way too much. 256M is enough.
As a result, I
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:12:17 +0100, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Then, create a volume group spawning [hs]da3 with name vg00 (you can
choose the name freely) and create logical volumes inside:
I'd use a less generic name, otherwise you'll have problems if the
computer fails and you try to connect the
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:50:33 +
Benjamen R. Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I set up a server system a little while ago, and in performing updates
to portage it ran out of disk space as I didn't quite allow enough
space on the root partition (3.8 GB). As a result, I took a partition
that I
Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
On Thursday 20 December 2007 10:50:33 Benjamen R. Meyer wrote:
I set up a server system a little while ago, and in performing updates
to portage it ran out of disk space as I didn't quite allow enough space
on the root partition (3.8 GB).
That's way too much. 256M is
On Thursday 20 December 2007, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:12:17 +0100, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Then, create a volume group spawning [hs]da3 with name vg00 (you can
choose the name freely) and create logical volumes inside:
I'd use a less generic name, otherwise you'll have
Mick wrote:
SNIP
With regards to your 47G /usr/portage partition I think that it is a waste of
space. It won't harm you other than the fact that the 3.8G OS partition is
in all likelihood too small. This is what I would do: tar the contents
of /usr/portage elsewhere (even in the 3.8G
Dale wrote:
Mick wrote:
SNIP
With regards to your 47G /usr/portage partition I think that it is a waste
of
space. It won't harm you other than the fact that the 3.8G OS partition is
in all likelihood too small. This is what I would do: tar the contents
of /usr/portage elsewhere (even
16 matches
Mail list logo
