1 |
Allan Gottlieb wrote: |
2 |
> I just received a new laptop (dell 6430s) with a 256GB SSD and naturally |
3 |
> want to install gentoo. I have installed gentoo several times but this |
4 |
> is my first with an SSD. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Dell configures a small first partition and places windows on two other |
7 |
> partitions (one small; the other the rest of the disk). |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I reinstalled windows shrinking the large partition very considerably (I |
10 |
> essentially never use the dell partition or windows; but they are |
11 |
> convenient to have if you need service from dell). |
12 |
> |
13 |
> In my current system, I have |
14 |
> |
15 |
> /root "native partition" |
16 |
> /usr lvm2 |
17 |
> /local lvm2 |
18 |
> /var lvm2 |
19 |
> /tmp lvm2 |
20 |
> /opt lvm2 |
21 |
> /a lvm2 |
22 |
> |
23 |
> My plan is to have root+usr on one "native partition" (to appease the |
24 |
> oracle at udev) and the rest on lvm2 as in my current configuration. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Although I will install dracut and perhaps try/use it, I do not want my |
27 |
> partitioning scheme to *force* me to use it. I believe combining root |
28 |
> and usr (off lvm2) will accomplish this goal. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> I was not surprised to see that the latest manual has root+usr combined, |
31 |
> but was surprised that they specify an additional small /boot partition. |
32 |
> I had thought that went out of favor a few years ago. Is it back |
33 |
> because of the root+usr merge? Do people here recommend a separate |
34 |
> /boot? |
35 |
|
36 |
It's just the way the Gentoo docs have always been. As with most things |
37 |
related to Unix, retrospective justifications are commonplace. I think |
38 |
it made a good deal more sense 10 years ago than it does today. Back |
39 |
then, ext2 was a safer option for boot loaders and live-distros alike. |
40 |
Nowadays, it generally doesn't matter and can be a source of confusion |
41 |
(I always thought that the self-referencing boot symlink was silly). |
42 |
There are some situations where it could afford more flexibility. |
43 |
However, I no longer specify a separate /boot unless there is a clear |
44 |
case for doing so. |
45 |
|
46 |
> |
47 |
> I know that it is important to have ssd partitions well aligned. It |
48 |
> appears that fdisk is doing this automatically (see below). Does the |
49 |
> following partitioning seem OK? |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Disk /dev/sda: 256.1 GB, 256060514304 bytes |
52 |
> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 31130 cylinders, total 500118192 sectors |
53 |
> Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes |
54 |
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes |
55 |
> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes |
56 |
> Disk identifier: 0x58737050 |
57 |
> |
58 |
> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System |
59 |
> /dev/sda1 63 80324 40131 de Dell Utility |
60 |
> /dev/sda2 81920 1622015 770048 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT |
61 |
> /dev/sda3 1622016 64536575 31457280 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT |
62 |
> /dev/sda4 64536576 500118191 217790808 5 Extended |
63 |
> /dev/sda5 * 64538624 127453183 31457280 83 Linux |
64 |
> /dev/sda6 127455232 131649535 2097152 82 Linux swap / Solaris |
65 |
> /dev/sda7 131651584 341366783 104857600 8e Linux LVM |
66 |
|
67 |
These are all perfectly aligned except for the first partition, not that |
68 |
it matters. Incidentally, no special parameters are required for tools |
69 |
such as pvcreate, mkfs.ext4, mkfs.xfs and such. They will generally do |
70 |
the right thing based on the information exposed by sysfs. |
71 |
|
72 |
Cheers, |
73 |
|
74 |
--Kerin |