| 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 |
Archives