Re: [opensuse] Questions for Partitioning guru's]
- From: Peter Sjoberg <peters-opensuse@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:24:52 -0400
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 02:23 -0400, Bob S wrote:
On Sunday 09 September 2007 14:30, Peter Sjoberg wrote:Well, that's one thing you need to keep track of since you can't have
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 00:49 -0400, Bob S wrote:
Hello SuSE people,
.<snip a bunch>................
I love lvm since it's so flexible, if you for example run low in space
in datalv you can just expand it without playing around with disk
partitions (=much safer) and you can even add a new disk and expand it
without problem. If I need to replace a disk with a bigger one/remove
one I can use a single "pvmove /dev/hdb" to move data around and get it
done without tons of repartition and fs moves.
OK, but I have a question;
When I installed 10.0 I used LVM for everything except /swap and /. When I
went to install 10.2 I was going to use LVM again, but when I looked at the
partitioner it seemed to want put my 10.2 partitions with the old 10.0 stuff
under /system2, That worried me. How could I have a homelv for 10.0 and a
homelv for 10.2?
two lvms with the same name. If you want homelv for 10.0 and 10.2 you
can but you need to name them something like home0lv and home2lv. Same
goes for anything else that has naming conflict.
The system2 vg can be common between all of them.
(relying on memory here which isn't as good as it used toIt's a bit like having a disk called system2 and partitions called
be) How would the 10.0 os and the 10.2 os sort it out. Soooo, I just resorted
to a regular partitioning scheme for 10.2
homelv/homel2lv/fc5varlv/fc5usrlv...
If it makes you feel more comfy, name them sdb1,sdb2,sdb3 :)
I don't like the way suse updater just replaces the kernel without
One thing is that since /boot and /boot/grub/menu.lst is common for all
installs you need to manually manage that area. I found that each os
version have there own version numbering like
vmlinuz-2.6.18.8-0.5-default/initrd-2.6.18.8-0.5-default so there is no
conflict
Ummm,,, that would be the kernel version, so it wouldn't be right if the
kernel were upgraded, right? When I upgraded the kernel in 10.2 I lost the
ability to boot 10.0. I attributed it to that but I didn't look into it
because 10.2 was working well. Guess I would have to reinstall 10.0 or find
the proper kernel and install it.
leaving the previous as a fallback (caused huge issue when I upgraded a
system that needed customized network drivers and I couldn't download
them for the new version since I didn't had a working network).
On the good news side, at most it may remove the old version from
menu.lst but it will add the new version somewhere so when you boot you
can go up/down in the menu to entry that works.
/boot contains each os versions (all) kernel/initrd version.
but they normally replace /boot/grub/menu.lst so I make sure I
have a copy of menu.lst somewhere and then I manually merge the old and
new menu.lst after each install.
So you must have both kernel versions on your system.
I don't like theAgree
automated update of the kernel because it replaces it rather than adding the
new kernel and you end up with only the one kernel.
Way back when.... I wouldWhen you have several different os versions around you have a complete
download a kernel and manually install it. That way I would have more than
one kernel to fall back on.
different os to fall back on, better then a rescue cd in many cases.
I guess I will start keeping a copy of Menu.1stI did see your "corrupt" config with the extended partition not covering
also.
Anxiously awaiting the final 10.3 so I can try Compiz-Fusion, Beryl
whatever and be able to fall back to 10.2 when I screw it up.
I'm also waiting for 10.3 final but you can do as me and start playing
with Beta 3 to get a feel for it and report problems (or you may have to
report same problem on the final because everyone assumed someone else
already tested and reported it)
Welllll.....I will, as soon as I free up the space on my drive which I screwed
up by improperly partitioning it. Thanks for your input.
the rest of the disk. I don't know if it's any safe way to change end
cylinder of sda4 to 30401 to make the disk usable again (Hmm, maybe
"sfdisk -d", need to test that in my lab in case I hit it).
If all else fails, one option would be to drop sda3 (swap) and create
sda3 as all the free space (and make it lvm). You still "loose" 2G but
right now you lost a lot more.
/ps
Bob S.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- References:
- [Fwd: Re: [opensuse] Questions for Partitioning guru's]
- From: Peter Sjoberg
- Re: [Fwd: Re: [opensuse] Questions for Partitioning guru's]
- From: Bob S
- [Fwd: Re: [opensuse] Questions for Partitioning guru's]
- Prev by Date: Re: [opensuse] Can't connect to Creative Zen MTP device
- Next by Date: Re: [opensuse] Ext3 vs Reiser FS
- Previous by thread: Re: [Fwd: Re: [opensuse] Questions for Partitioning guru's]
- Next by thread: Re: [opensuse] Questions for Partitioning guru's
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
