| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 15 2012, Kerin Millar wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Allan Gottlieb wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> I was not surprised to see that the latest manual has root+usr combined, |
| 6 |
>> but was surprised that they specify an additional small /boot partition. |
| 7 |
>> I had thought that went out of favor a few years ago. Is it back |
| 8 |
>> because of the root+usr merge? Do people here recommend a separate |
| 9 |
>> /boot? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> It's just the way the Gentoo docs have always been. As with most |
| 12 |
> things related to Unix, retrospective justifications are |
| 13 |
> commonplace. I think it made a good deal more sense 10 years ago than |
| 14 |
> it does today. Back then, ext2 was a safer option for boot loaders and |
| 15 |
> live-distros alike. Nowadays, it generally doesn't matter and can be a |
| 16 |
> source of confusion (I always thought that the self-referencing boot |
| 17 |
> symlink was silly). There are some situations where it could afford |
| 18 |
> more flexibility. However, I no longer specify a separate /boot unless |
| 19 |
> there is a clear case for doing so. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Thanks. I will do the same |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> I know that it is important to have ssd partitions well aligned. It |
| 25 |
>> appears that fdisk is doing this automatically (see below). Does the |
| 26 |
>> following partitioning seem OK? |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
> These are all perfectly aligned except for the first partition, not |
| 29 |
> that it matters. Incidentally, no special parameters are required for |
| 30 |
> tools such as pvcreate, mkfs.ext4, mkfs.xfs and such. They will |
| 31 |
> generally do the right thing based on the information exposed by |
| 32 |
> sysfs. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I was actually thinking about just that as I will be using mkfs.ext4 and |
| 35 |
many of the lvm tools, so thanks in advance. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
allan |
Archives