On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, thib wrote:
OTOH - I haven't studied XFS - but from the little overviews I read about
it, I suppose its allocation groups are a way to scale with this problem
(along with other unrelated advantages like parallelism in multithreaded
environments). What happens if a
Robert Brockway wrote:
[...]
Possibly. I didn't mean to suggest that dd was a good way to backup. I
think it is a terrible way to backup[1]. I was talking about dump
utilities. I started using dump on Solaris in the mid 90s and really
like the approach to backing up that dump utilities
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
swap 4GB may never need it, but u have plenty of disk
/boot 100MB ext2safe call, even if grub(2) doesn't need a /boot
/ 40GBext2/3 journal may eliminate mandatory check interval
/var up2uext2sequential write/read,
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010, thib wrote:
Usually I never ask myself whether I should organize my disks into separate
filesystems or not. I just think how? and I go with a cool layout without
thinking back - LVM lets us correct them easily anyway. I should even say
that I believed a single root
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010, Clive McBarton wrote:
Ignore swap, that's just small stuff, especially with 3GB. You could
have 64GB and it would still be not that important. Put it on any
partition or file you want.
The rule is 1:2 BTW.
Hi Clive. I liked the rest of your post but I did want to make
Robert Brockway wrote:
[...]
Some filesystems such as XFS ZFS allow you to effectively set quotas
on parts of the filesystem. I think we'll see this becoming more
common. This takes away a big part of the need for multiple filesystems.
This is a neat feature indeed. And you're right;
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, thib wrote:
If restore speed is really that critical, it should still be possible to
generate an image without including the free space - I know virtualization
techs are doing it just fine for most filesystems.
Maybe we misunderstood each other - saw a different problem.
Clive McBarton wrote:
google ext4 kde4 and the first hit is Data loss may occurr when using
ext4 and KDE 4. I think Ubuntu offered ext4 as optional then and many
people ran into problems, supposedly massive data loss. XFS would be the
same. Application programmers don't cope with delayed
thib put forth on 2/27/2010 8:18 PM:
Hello,
Usually I never ask myself whether I should organize my disks into
separate filesystems or not. I just think how? and I go with a cool
layout without thinking back - LVM lets us correct them easily anyway.
I should even say that I believed a
On 02/27/2010 11:18 PM, thib wrote:
Hello,
Usually I never ask myself whether I should organize my disks into separate
filesystems or not. I just think how? and I go with a cool layout without
thinking back - LVM lets us correct them easily anyway. I should even say
that I believed a single
On Sun,28.Feb.10, 03:20:38, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
/var up2uext2sequential write/read, journal unnecessary
Would you mind going into details? I always thought the journal was
especially useful on partitions like /var where it is more likely that
the system will be writing something
Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/28/2010 8:32 AM:
On Sun,28.Feb.10, 03:20:38, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
/var up2uext2sequential write/read, journal unnecessary
Would you mind going into details? I always thought the journal was
especially useful on partitions like /var where it is more
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
All of that talk and gyration over a workstation disk layout? You never did
mention what the primary application usage is on this machine, which should
be a factor in how you set it up. If you're an email warrior, what damn
difference does it make, and why bother with LVM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I find the concept very interesting in principle, although I am not sure
I can recommend it. In some respects single file systems are more
acceptable nowadays. In others they are not. Here are my $.02:
* Filesystem corruption containment
I use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
/var up2uext2sequential write/read, journal unnecessary
I don't see the advantage of ext2 over ext3 here (or for that matter
anywhere else, which may just be my ignorance). The journal may be
unnecessary, but it doesn't
Clive McBarton wrote:
I find the concept very interesting in principle, although I am not sure
I can recommend it. In some respects single file systems are more
acceptable nowadays. In others they are not. Here are my $.02:
Thank you.
[...]
You trust ext4, and so does Ubuntu. Others
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 07:34:03PM +0100, thib wrote:
Clive McBarton wrote:
I find the concept very interesting in principle, although I am not sure
I can recommend it. In some respects single file systems are more
acceptable nowadays. In others they are not. Here are my $.02:
my 2c, with
Alex Samad wrote:
my 2c, with the size of HD's and the processing power we have now, I
really wonder if spending more than a second on deciding on a single
partition or not is worth it. Are the amount of space lost - expressed
as a percentage of the disk really worth all the time being spent on
thib put forth on 2/28/2010 1:13 PM:
[Not sure you've seen; I messed up, hence the second message: this
conversation went private, would you like to keep it that way?]
Oh, I thought you meant to go private so I was honoring that. I'll go back
on list with this.
Well, for someone who owns a
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Use LILO instead of grub(2), and stick the boot loader on the MBR. The
/boot partition isn't absolutely necessary, but it provides a small amount
of additional safety and system compatibility from a boot perspective.
What exactly can I gain from LILO in this case? I was
Clive McBarton wrote:
*You may trust ext4 at this point, but I, and many others don't. xfs beats
ext4 in every category, so why bother with ext4?
Exactly. If any Ubuntu maintainers were on this list, we could ask them,
they see some reason for it (but I don't know what it is).
Are there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
thib wrote:
You trust ext4, and so does Ubuntu. Others (including most distros,
including Debian) do not.
I'm sorry if I should know, but is that a clear position or the general
fear around delayed allocation?
google ext4 kde4 and the first
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alex Samad wrote:
my 2c, with the size of HD's and the processing power we have now, I
really wonder if spending more than a second on deciding on a single
partition or not is worth it.
It's theoretical reasoning. It's good for understanding. And
So, what are the advantages I see, and why don't they matter to me anymore?
First off, IIUC you seem to want to use LVM, right?
I'd agree with this choice: there's little reasons not to use LVM nowadays.
Once you've decided to use LVM, then the rest (happily) doesn't really
matter anyway, since
Hello,
Usually I never ask myself whether I should organize my disks into separate
filesystems or not. I just think how? and I go with a cool layout without
thinking back - LVM lets us correct them easily anyway. I should even say
that I believed a single root filesystem on a system was a
25 matches
Mail list logo
