Re: [gentoo-user] new installation (ssd, new udev, grub2)

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:55:31 -0400
Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Alan McKinnon
> <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:23 -0400
> > Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Neil Bothwick
> > > <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:11:37 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > I have one of those. But I decided to stick with
> > > > > > traditional DOS partitioning style and grub instead of GPT
> > > > > > and grub2.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am leaning toward traditional partitioning, but with
> > > > > grub2.  Do those two not mix well?
> > > >
> > > > GRUB2 works fine with MBR partition tables. But if you're
> > > > starting from scratch, you may as well use GPT and get rid of
> > > > the legacy MBR limitations and fragility.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not dissing GPT...but what's fragile about MBR?
> >
> > it's 30 years old,
> > only 4 primary partitions,
> > only 16 extended partitions,
> > it's got that weird DOS boot flag thing,
> > it all has to fit in one sector.
> >
> > I had to fix a mispartitioned disk over the weekend, this really
> > should have been a simple mv-type operation, but because all 4
> > primary partitions were in use I had to disable swap and use it as
> > a leap-frog area. It felt like I was playing 15 pieces with the
> > disk. That's fragile - not that the disk breaks, but that it breaks
> > my ability to set the thing up easily.
> >
> > Basically, mbr was built to cater for the needs of DOS-3. In the
> > meantime, 1982 called and they want their last 30 years back.
> >
> > Just because we can hack workarounds into it to get it to function
> > doesn't mean we should continue to use it.
> >
>
> You misunderstand me. I wasn't arguing that GPT wasn't perhaps more
> elegant than MBR and dos partitions. I wanted to know what was
> _fragile_ about MBR. Completely different things.

I did answer (somewhat obliquely).

mbr as a single isolated unit is not especially fragile; very little
software is and bits don't magically "rot"

It's the system into which the sysadmin inserts mbr that is fragile.
The whole system is fragile like an egg is fragile - it can't withstand
much manhandling or moving of stuff around before some mistake wreaks
everything, and that is mostly due to mbr's limits.

It's not semantic nitpicking here, if the system as a unit becomes
fragile as a result of part X, then the system is still fragile.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com