-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, houghi wrote:
Is there a reason that /boot is on a seperate partition? I do not know LVM, so I can only guess that the reason is that LVM is not directly bootable.
Accessing LVM requires a kernel that can read the LVM info stored on the disk. A plain BIOS can't do that, and I am not sure about a boot manager like GRUB. The kernel loads the LVM drivers via the initrd, which is located on a "plain" /boot partition in my case. Once the initrd is booted, it can read and access all other file systems located inside the LVM.
As we had a LONG discussion where it was decided to have /home on a seperate discussion, this would lead to the following solution if we should decide to go with LVM 1 reiser partition /boot to make it bootable
Why ReiserFS for /boot? This file system rarely changes and the journal would just require additional disk space. Plain ext2 is sufficient.
1 LVM partition / 1 LVM partition /home
Correct, this is in essence how I handle it here. Nitpick: it's called a "LV (logical volume)", not "partition" in LVM terms. See the LVM HOWTO for a detailed explanation of the terminology used there. Just to avoid confusion :) So yes, the partitioner would need to create two additional regular partitions: - a small one (~100MB is more than sufficient) for /boot - a large one to house the logical volumes for /home and the root file system This can be either a primary or an extended partition, of course. To give a concrete example - this is how my laptop disk (80GB) is partitioned: /dev/hda1 (~20GB) - Windows XP (NTFS) /dev/hda2 (~150MB) - Linux /boot (ext2) /dev/hda3 (~1.5GB) - Linux swap (as the current suspend to disk kernel code requires swap to be outside the LVM - swsusp2 has fixed that and can suspend to swap managed by the device mapper) /dev/hda4 (~58GB) - Linux LVM /boot is actually shared between 10.1 and 10.0 - as both use different file names for the kernel and initrd files, there is no conflict. If only YaST2 would take care of existing entries in GRUB's menu.lst - I currently have to manually re-add some entries after a fresh installation. Inside the LVM I currently have defined the following volumes: suse101root (7GB) - SuSE Linux 10.1 root file system (ReiserFS) suse10root (7GB) - SUSE Linux 10.0 root file system (ReiserFS) cryptohome (10GB) - Encrypted /home file system (ReiserFS) usrlocal (2GB) - /usr/local (ReiserFS) Once I have finished my transition from SUSE 10.0 to 10.1, I can simply discard the suse10root volume and re-use the disk space e.g. for a SUSE 10.2 test root filesystem, creating a short-term "scratch" file system or for increasing any of the other volumes, in case they run out of space. No repartitioning required!
To explain: the seperate /home is not so much about size as it is about keeping your data and settings with a new installation.
Exactly, this works very well and should of course be kept. LVM would just make this even more flexible, as you can resize /home dynamically without repartitioning (in case your MP3 collection grows ;) )
If there is no real reason to have a seperate /boot, then it would still make sence to have a seperate / and /home as we have now.
Definitely. LVM won't get into the way of this scheme of separating file
systems. Quite the contrary, it would allow some additional flexibility!
Bye,
LenZ
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenz Grimmer