1 |
> - be aware of cylinder boundaries when partitioning (thanks to the |
2 |
> recent thread) |
3 |
|
4 |
+1 |
5 |
|
6 |
> - utilizing device labels and/or volume labels instead of hoping |
7 |
> /dev/sda stays /dev/sda always |
8 |
|
9 |
+1 |
10 |
|
11 |
> - initrd - I've never used one, but maybe it's needed if root is on |
12 |
> software RAID? |
13 |
|
14 |
It's not technically needed and boot times are faster without them. |
15 |
I'm a fan of statically compiled kernels too but that's more to |
16 |
prevent malicious LKMs. |
17 |
|
18 |
> - grub/kernel parameter tips and tricks... i'm already using uvesafb, |
19 |
> and don't dual-boot with MSWin or anything, just Gentoo |
20 |
> - better partitioning scheme than my current root, boot, home (need |
21 |
> portage on its own, maybe /var as well?) |
22 |
|
23 |
putting portage on it's on partition is a good idea imo, I usually use |
24 |
reiserfs because it handles large amounts of small files well. |
25 |
|
26 |
> - some kind of small linux emergency/recovery partition? equivalent to |
27 |
> a liveCD maybe. |
28 |
|
29 |
I usually keep a bootable usb in my bag for recovery, which also works |
30 |
if there is a problem with the disk/raid. |
31 |
|
32 |
> - best filesystem for portage? something compressed or with small |
33 |
> cluster size maybe. |
34 |
|
35 |
reiserfs |
36 |
|
37 |
> - SSD vs 10000rpm vs big-and-cheap hard drive for rootfs/system files. |
38 |
> I lean toward the latter since RAM caches it anyway. |
39 |
|
40 |
SSDs can make things snappier for boot times. Having lots of ram for |
41 |
disk cache eliminates the benefit after booted since ram is even |
42 |
faster than a SSD. |
43 |
|
44 |
> - omit/reduce number of reserved-for-root blocks on partitions where |
45 |
> it's not necessary. |
46 |
|
47 |
I never get close to filling my disks so never have bothered with this |
48 |
|
49 |
> - I have never used LVM and don't really know about it. Should I use |
50 |
> it? will it make life easier someday? or more difficult? |
51 |
|
52 |
I'm not a fan, if you don't plan on changing your partition sizes I |
53 |
don't see a lot of utility in adding the extra layer of complexity. |
54 |
|
55 |
> - Is RAID5 still a good balance for disk cost vs usable space vs data |
56 |
> safety? I can't/don't want to pay for full mirroring of all disks. |
57 |
|
58 |
It's better than no raid but as you probably know it will only allow |
59 |
for a single disk failure. Getting drives from different lots (but |
60 |
same geometry) is recommended. |
61 |
-- |
62 |
|
63 |
Kyle |