On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 03:55:59PM +0200, Lenz Grimmer wrote:
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.
OK, clear.
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.
I just looked at what is now there and to make it clear that it was not LVM. Could be anything, I guess. FAT32? :-) I do not believe that at this moment it is relevant in the discussion what it will become later.
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 :)
OK. I understand. To avaid confusion, we use different names for someting that fr the layman like me is the same. ;-)
/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.
With a fresh installation, you have the option to mix the old and the proposed GRUB menu.lst. The following is from memory, so names might be a bit different and you will need to look for yourself. Where you can select the way things are partitioned and the software to install choose the secon tab, Advanced. There you can select how to boot. If you select GRUB, you have a button in the lower right, "Other", where you can do a "Merge" with what you have now. The names come out a bit awkward, but you should be able to keep your current settings AND your new ones in one go from boot on.
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!
I see very much the advantages. It would solve also issues where you first had only /home and / as volumes (partitions makes more sence still, but whatever) on the LVM and then suddenly realize that you want to keep /srv with a new installation. You could then resize / and /home, add /a new volume /srv and move all the data over from / to /srv. Do the new installation and still have what you wanted to keep. Am I correct in this idea? If so, then by all means. Pitty it was not clear when it was decided to go to / and /home, Would have een great to do at the same time and would have stopped the part where people said to also have a seperate /opt, /srv, /var, /boot, /whatever. Unless somebody can think of a huge drawback, I am convinced now. -- houghi http://houghi.org http://www.plainfaqs.org/linux/ http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Today I went outside. My pupils have never been tinier...
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory-help@opensuse.org