Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (241 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse-factory] partition limits of SCSI/libata
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:51:49 +0100
- Message-id: <howt2b65cq.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Felix Miata <mrmazda@xxxxxx> writes:
> On 2007/02/20 15:06 (GMT+0100) Andreas Jaeger apparently typed:
>
>> Felix Miata <mrmazda@xxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> On 2007/02/20 12:44 (GMT-0500) Andreas Jaeger apparently typed:
>
>>>> Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>>>> IMO lvm is the only sane approach to handle that many filesystems.
>
>>>> Guys, do you really see this a limitation that will hit many of us?
>
>>> Consider the people who typically use more than 15 partitions per disk:
>
>> Really more than 15? Who has that?
>
> Besides me, couldn't tell you. At the end of this post are the
> partitions of my 5 most used systems: 1-this, which runs eComStation
> virtually 24/7; 2-my server, which runs 10.2 mostly; 3-5: various
> other systems, each of which has at least one installation of Factory
> and at least one other installation of some other SUSE version.
Wow, that's impressive - but I think extrem as well.
> The disk with fewest has 23, which is the largest and newest I have. The longer they get used the more they get.
You could still use just two partitions per OS - one big LVM and a
boot one.
>>> 1-multibooters, and/or
>
>> That must be a lot of distros.
>
> ???. Multiboot means the system has at least two partitions with one
> bootable OS per partition. That doesn't have a lot to do with how many
> partitions an OS will use, or a backup plan will use, or how many
> distros are or can be installed on a disk.
>
>>> 2-people who use partitions as all or part of their backup strategy
>
>> And I'm sure those guys are not using SCSI, since then they would have
>> the problems already for ages. So, how are people using nowadays SCSI
>> solve that?
>
> I have no idea. Partly because of that problem I quit using SCSI for
> anything except non-disk peripherals or archives about 7 years ago.
>
>>> I'm not aware of any cross-platform LVM solution. And what OS-agnostic
> alternative backup solution will SUSE offer? Are we going to say to these
> people "sorry, find some other distro, SUSE's not for you"?
>
>> Fedora and Red Hat will not be for them as well. They go the same
>> road and use LVM by default. I expect others will follow as well,
>
> Probably, but probably also some will figure out a way to not alienate
> those with well established backup routines that include logically
> segregating various file types. The need to multiboot will probably not
> escape many users for quite some time, even if it means using various
> virtual OS installations, another good reason for extra partitions.
The question is what can be done here. Automatic setup is complex :-(
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, aj@xxxxxxx, http://www.suse.de/~aj/
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
> On 2007/02/20 15:06 (GMT+0100) Andreas Jaeger apparently typed:
>
>> Felix Miata <mrmazda@xxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> On 2007/02/20 12:44 (GMT-0500) Andreas Jaeger apparently typed:
>
>>>> Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>>>> IMO lvm is the only sane approach to handle that many filesystems.
>
>>>> Guys, do you really see this a limitation that will hit many of us?
>
>>> Consider the people who typically use more than 15 partitions per disk:
>
>> Really more than 15? Who has that?
>
> Besides me, couldn't tell you. At the end of this post are the
> partitions of my 5 most used systems: 1-this, which runs eComStation
> virtually 24/7; 2-my server, which runs 10.2 mostly; 3-5: various
> other systems, each of which has at least one installation of Factory
> and at least one other installation of some other SUSE version.
Wow, that's impressive - but I think extrem as well.
> The disk with fewest has 23, which is the largest and newest I have. The longer they get used the more they get.
You could still use just two partitions per OS - one big LVM and a
boot one.
>>> 1-multibooters, and/or
>
>> That must be a lot of distros.
>
> ???. Multiboot means the system has at least two partitions with one
> bootable OS per partition. That doesn't have a lot to do with how many
> partitions an OS will use, or a backup plan will use, or how many
> distros are or can be installed on a disk.
>
>>> 2-people who use partitions as all or part of their backup strategy
>
>> And I'm sure those guys are not using SCSI, since then they would have
>> the problems already for ages. So, how are people using nowadays SCSI
>> solve that?
>
> I have no idea. Partly because of that problem I quit using SCSI for
> anything except non-disk peripherals or archives about 7 years ago.
>
>>> I'm not aware of any cross-platform LVM solution. And what OS-agnostic
> alternative backup solution will SUSE offer? Are we going to say to these
> people "sorry, find some other distro, SUSE's not for you"?
>
>> Fedora and Red Hat will not be for them as well. They go the same
>> road and use LVM by default. I expect others will follow as well,
>
> Probably, but probably also some will figure out a way to not alienate
> those with well established backup routines that include logically
> segregating various file types. The need to multiboot will probably not
> escape many users for quite some time, even if it means using various
> virtual OS installations, another good reason for extra partitions.
The question is what can be done here. Automatic setup is complex :-(
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, aj@xxxxxxx, http://www.suse.de/~aj/
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
| < Previous | Next > |