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

[J.Marcos Sitorus]

Hi guys, after quick read about ssd, I have a couple of question:
1. My friend have new server with a ssd installed. He plan to RHEL 5.7
(I don't know why he choose this) on it. On redhat website, it say
something like this:
"However, if the device does not export topology information, Red Hat
recommends that the first partition be created at a 1MB boundary."
What does it mean by 1MB boundary? Does it mean he have to create 1MB
free space in front or he have to create a 1MB partition in front of
his actual partition(s)?

2. Is it possible to combine TRIM support and ext3 partition (AFAIK,
RHEL 5.7 haven't support ext4)?

*i hope this is not count as hijacking

On 8/14/12, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Salam,

J.Marcos S.
Sent from X1™