On 06/03/10 05:10, Simon Geard wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 23:38 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Great! However, is that the max that was needed during the build?
No idea, but if that full installation comes in at 3.6Gb, it's unlikely
that any single package would have pushed it over 5Gb during
Simon Geard wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:23 +, David Shaw wrote:
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that, if you use hibernation, your
computer's state is stored to the swap space. So, if you have 2GB of
RAM and only 1GB of swap then hibernate would fail.
Of course, I could
Simon Geard wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 12:38 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
I've got a question about this. Why bother with a swap partition?
AIUI, with 2.6 kernels, using a swap file is as fast as using a
swap partition, and it is certainly more flexible to modify later.
Relevant
Mike McCarty wrote:
Baho Utot wrote:
[putolin]
I use a boot partition and this layout
$ ls /boot
LFS-6.5/ Slack-x86-crypt/ Slackware-13.0-x86/ grub/ lost+found/
If /boot is an ordinary directory under /, and not a mount point,
then one needs to modify the MBR to point to the place
On 05/03/10 00:11, Baho Utot wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
I keep my kernel in /home/boot, along with all grub's files, so that if I
boot into one
LFS partition or the other I can use the same kernel and I never need to use
grub to rewrite
the MBR
I don't understand how that helps
It
David Shaw wrote:
Simon Geard wrote:
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that, if you use hibernation, your
computer's state is stored to the swap space. So, if you have 2GB of
RAM and only 1GB of swap then hibernate would fail.
That is my understanding, as well.
Of course, I could
Baho Utot wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Baho Utot wrote:
[putolin]
I use a boot partition and this layout
$ ls /boot
LFS-6.5/ Slack-x86-crypt/ Slackware-13.0-x86/ grub/ lost+found/
If /boot is an ordinary directory under /, and not a mount point,
then one needs to modify the MBR
It's all a matter of taste.
You could put an extra buck to get an other disk on the secondary ide
controller.
hda 40g
hdb cdrom
hdc 40g (might be something else)
hdd cdrom
With only 192mb RAM and LFS in mind, you'll need lots of swap; the magnitude
being around 2.5gb. For this purpose, the
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 23:38 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Simon Geard wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:13 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Does the build partition really need to be 10G? Would 5G be enough
to build a new BLFS with smallish desktop, like fluxbox, not a big
GNOME or KDE? If so, then
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:23 +, David Shaw wrote:
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that, if you use hibernation, your
computer's state is stored to the swap space. So, if you have 2GB of
RAM and only 1GB of swap then hibernate would fail.
Of course, I could have got totally the
Simon Geard wrote:
[...]
For what it's worth, my disk layout looks something like:
/dev/sda1
- /boot, 100Mb. Allows me to keep bootloader config independent of the
actual OS installs.
/dev/sda2
- swap, 2Gb.
I've got a question about this. Why bother with a swap partition?
AIUI, with
I'm a laid off engineer on a zero income budget, so $$$ are a prime
consideration. I bought a basic system for $1 at at swap meet. It
had no hard drive, and a burnt out power supply, and only 64M of RAM.
I've added another 128M of RAM from a junker, and transplanted a PS
from another machine, and
Mike McCarty wrote:
I've got a question about this. Why bother with a swap partition?
AIUI, with 2.6 kernels, using a swap file is as fast as using a
swap partition, and it is certainly more flexible to modify later.
That's certainly your choice. The only problem is that if you run out
of
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I've got a question about this. Why bother with a swap partition?
AIUI, with 2.6 kernels, using a swap file is as fast as using a
swap partition, and it is certainly more flexible to modify later.
That's certainly your choice. The only problem is
Mike McCarty wrote:
Does the build partition really need to be 10G?
For LFS alone, no. A few years ago we checked it and determined the
minimum size would be 1.3G, but that has probably grown. I've not
tested it, but I suspect that you can get by with 2G fairly easily, but
that doesn't
On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
I'm a laid off engineer on a zero income budget, so $$$ are a prime
consideration. I bought a basic system for $1 at at swap meet. It
had no hard drive, and a burnt out power supply, and only 64M of RAM.
I've added another 128M of RAM from a junker, and
Andrew Benton wrote:
On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
[...]
Here's my initial thoughts...
prtn sizemount point
---
hda1 100M/boot
hda2 10G / (main)
hda3 10G / (build)
hda5 20G /home
If you've only got 128M of RAM you'll need
On 2/16/10, Ken Moffat zarniwhoo...@googlemail.com wrote:
I tend to use 5GB or less for a desktop system.
If you plan to build *all* of gnome, or *all* of kde,
that probably isn't enough space, but in my case
I'd probably put /boot (100MB is big), swap if any,
and 2 or 3 versions of '/' on
Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Mike McCarty
mike.mcca...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
[...]
Here's my initial thoughts...
prtn sizemount point
---
hda1 100M/boot
hda2 10G /
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mike McCarty mike.mcca...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Mike McCarty
mike.mcca...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
[...]
Here's my initial thoughts...
prtn
On 04/03/10 20:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
I use one partition for both /home and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link
pointing at /home/boot
Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is
there something I don't know?
I keep my kernel in /home/boot, along with
stosss wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mike McCarty mike.mcca...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
I want to put it where each bootable version can access it. I don't
want to carve 1G out of each of the partitions, so /home/swap is
a reasonable compromise. Each partition then has /swap as a
Andrew Benton wrote:
On 04/03/10 20:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
I use one partition for both /home and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link
pointing at /home/boot
Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is
there something I don't know?
I keep my kernel in
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Mike McCarty mike.mcca...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
stosss wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mike McCarty mike.mcca...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
I want to put it where each bootable version can access it. I don't
want to carve 1G out of each of the partitions, so
Mike McCarty wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
On 04/03/10 20:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
I use one partition for both /home and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link
pointing at /home/boot
Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is
there something I don't know?
I
stosss wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Mike McCarty mike.mcca...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
stosss wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mike McCarty mike.mcca...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
If I understand you, that carves 1G out of each of the system
partitions.
If the swap file is on the
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Mike, I don't understand your dislike for separate /boot and swap
partitions. They are not large and really don't need to change once set
up properly.
I don't dislike a separate /boot partition. I like that, and I like
it near the beginning of the disc.
I don't like a
Mike McCarty wrote:
I don't like a separate swap partition, because it's difficult to
resize, and the information I have is that with 2.6 kernels a swap file
is as fast as a separate partition, and much easier to resize.
Interesting. I've never had to resize a swap partition. I generally
Andrew Benton wrote:
On 04/03/10 20:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
I use one partition for both /home and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link
pointing at /home/boot
Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is
there something I don't know?
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I don't like a separate swap partition, because it's difficult to
resize, and the information I have is that with 2.6 kernels a swap file
is as fast as a separate partition, and much easier to resize.
Interesting. I've never had to resize a
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I don't like a separate swap partition, because it's difficult to
resize, and the information I have is that with 2.6 kernels a swap file
is as fast as a separate partition, and much easier to resize.
Interesting. I've never had to resize a swap
Baho Utot wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote:
I keep my kernel in /home/boot, along with all grub's files, so that if I
boot into one
LFS partition or the other I can use the same kernel and I never need to use
grub to rewrite
the MBR
Andy
I don't understand how that helps
He was
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 12:38 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
I've got a question about this. Why bother with a swap partition?
AIUI, with 2.6 kernels, using a swap file is as fast as using a
swap partition, and it is certainly more flexible to modify later.
Relevant only if I'd ever want to modify
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:13 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Does the build partition really need to be 10G? Would 5G be enough
to build a new BLFS with smallish desktop, like fluxbox, not a big
GNOME or KDE? If so, then /home could grow by another 10G, which
would be nice.
5Gb should be fine -
On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 23:10 +, aztec...@comcast.net wrote:
Based on this setup, is it possible to have /root and /boot on two
separate drives (in my case '/root' was in #2, and '/boot' was on
#1)?
Hang on, do you really mean '/root', i.e the root user's home directory?
Or do you mean the
On 16/02/10 23:10, aztec...@comcast.net wrote:
Based on this setup, is it possible to have /root and /boot on two separate
drives (in my case '/root' was in #2, and '/boot' was on #1)? The reason I
ask is because I attempted to do an install using this scheme but it gave me
error 17 or 15 (
Here we are, though I'm not a fat hard driver as many of you are.
/dev/hda 80gb
/dev/hdc 40gb
hda:
/dev/hda1 16mb /boot
/dev/hda2 20gb /
/dev/hda3 20gb /
/dev/hda4 + /dev/hdc1 = /dev/md0 80gb /home
/dev/hda5 + /dev/hdc2 = remaining swap for roughly 1.5gb
hda2 and hda3 are used as current root
Hey guys, I have a system with 3 separate Hard drives that I would like to know
how to partition and I would like to know if there is anyone with any
suggestions.
There are currently three hard drives on my system:
• #1 : 20 GB drive
• #2 : 200 GB drive
• #3 : 250 GB drive
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:10 PM, aztec...@comcast.net wrote:
Hey guys, I have a system with 3 separate Hard drives that I would like to
know how to partition and I would like to know if there is anyone with any
suggestions.
There are currently three hard drives on my system:
#1 : 20 GB
On 16 February 2010 23:10, aztec...@comcast.net wrote:
Hey guys, I have a system with 3 separate Hard drives that I would like to
know how to partition and I would like to know if there is anyone with any
suggestions.
There are currently three hard drives on my system:
#1 : 20 GB drive
aztec...@comcast.net wrote:
Hey guys, I have a system with 3 separate Hard drives that I would
like to know how to partition and I would like to know if there is
anyone with any suggestions.
There are currently three hard drives on my system:
• #1 : 20 GB drive • #2 : 200 GB drive •
41 matches
Mail list logo
