Hello,
fdisk -l gives: /dev/sda9 174809088 205529087 15360000 83 Linux /dev/sda10 205531136 208603135 1536000 83 Linux /dev/sda11 208605184 221302783 6348800 83 Linux /dev/sda12 221304832 291960831 35328000 83 Linux
while pvscan PV /dev/sda12 VG VolGrpSys2 lvm2 [33.69 GiB / 0 free]
So sda12 is a lvm partition, but not recognized by fdisk
How can I fix this issue?
Thank.
Patric, fdisk (you have to start using -cul instead of -l) reports what-ever the partition table contains. It's utterly ignorant to what's on the actual partition. So simply login with fdisk, do a "t" and change the partition type to what-ever you want.
Be aware that linux ignores those types - they have absolutely no impact on how your system works.
Regards Peter Larsen
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 10:54 +0000, Patrick Dupre wrote:
Hello,
fdisk -l gives: /dev/sda9 174809088 205529087 15360000 83 Linux /dev/sda10 205531136 208603135 1536000 83 Linux /dev/sda11 208605184 221302783 6348800 83 Linux /dev/sda12 221304832 291960831 35328000 83 Linux
while pvscan PV /dev/sda12 VG VolGrpSys2 lvm2 [33.69 GiB / 0 free]
So sda12 is a lvm partition, but not recognized by fdisk
How can I fix this issue?
Thank.
On 03/04/2012 02:54 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
Hello,
fdisk -l gives: /dev/sda9 174809088 205529087 15360000 83 Linux /dev/sda10 205531136 208603135 1536000 83 Linux /dev/sda11 208605184 221302783 6348800 83 Linux /dev/sda12 221304832 291960831 35328000 83 Linux
while pvscan PV /dev/sda12 VG VolGrpSys2 lvm2 [33.69 GiB / 0 free]
So sda12 is a lvm partition, but not recognized by fdisk
How can I fix this issue?
Thank.
There is no mapping between fdisk reported partitions and LVM's LVs. What does correlate is fdisk's partitions and LVM's PVs. So, run;
pvscan vgscan lvscan
If you want more detail;
pvdisplay vgdisplay lvdisplay
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Peter Larsen plarsen@famlarsen.homelinux.com wrote:
Patric, fdisk (you have to start using -cul instead of -l) reports what-ever the partition table contains. It's utterly ignorant to what's on the actual partition. So simply login with fdisk, do a "t" and change the partition type to what-ever you want.
Be aware that linux ignores those types - they have absolutely no impact on how your system works.
I guess that creating a partition type using a disk partitioning tool like gparted or fdisk is different, and independent, to the filesystem that is subsequently generated inside the partition! This is a piece of knowledge, or lack of, that leads to quit a lot of confusion!
So you can make a dos partition but then put a filesystem in it that is ext4 or LVM for example..... I wonder if there is a good simple tutorial around that explains disk partitioning and filesystems?
Anyone know?
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 18:27 +0000, mike cloaked wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Peter Larsen plarsen@famlarsen.homelinux.com wrote:
Patric, fdisk (you have to start using -cul instead of -l) reports what-ever the partition table contains. It's utterly ignorant to what's on the actual partition. So simply login with fdisk, do a "t" and change the partition type to what-ever you want.
Be aware that linux ignores those types - they have absolutely no impact on how your system works.
I guess that creating a partition type using a disk partitioning tool like gparted or fdisk is different, and independent, to the filesystem that is subsequently generated inside the partition!
Absolutely. The "partition type" is something DOS/Windows uses (to a degree) and for backwards compatability reasons, you still see MS products use these labels. Linux, however, does not adhere to or use the partition types at all.
This is a piece of knowledge, or lack of, that leads to quit a lot of confusion!
It's been this way for ages with Linux. To be frank, I don't recall a type where the partition types meant anything. The boot flag did before grub have a meaning, but since legacy grub came around (even lilo if I remember right) it's also being ignored.
So you can make a dos partition but then put a filesystem in it that is ext4 or LVM for example..... I wonder if there is a good simple tutorial around that explains disk partitioning and filesystems?
The fedora project has some very good documentation on LVM: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/14/html/Storage_Administration_Gu...
To be honest, partitions are really a thing of the past. As we move away from the DOS partition tables, the last fight is really about boot security than anything else. Only on systems that are dual-booted does partitions make sense. With Grub2 we can now have a single partition for everything - and the reason we have the partition table is due to the bios needs during boot. But in essence all we need is a pointer to a location on the drive where the file-system begins. With LVM we then divide things up in smaller pieces that can will serve you a lot better than partitions will.
In other words - you shouldn't have 10,11 or 12 partitions.
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/16/html-single/Installation_Guide...
There's plenty of documents in the fedoraproject and while there is room for improvements you should be able to use the links provided here to dive a bit into the wonderful world of file systems.
Anyone know?
mike c
Am 04.03.2012 21:13, schrieb Peter Larsen:
Only on systems that are dual-booted does partitions make sense. With Grub2 we can now have a single partition for everything - and the reason we have the partition table is due to the bios needs during boot.
is this a joke?
you really want to install a OS and put systema nd data on the same partition? do this if you want but do not tell anybody this is a smart setup-design!
if anything goes terrible wrong with your OS you want to care about your data? your decision! most people would not if they have any knowledge
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 03/04/2012 02:13 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
The boot flag did before grub have a meaning, but since legacy grub
came around (even lilo if I remember right) it's also being ignored. You have to be careful about the boot flag. The BIOS may requite the boot flag before it will try and boot from the drive. It usually does not have to be the partition you actually boot from, unless your boot loader is installed in the boot record of the partition, and there isn't one in the MBR. (Again, this is BIOS dependent.)
You also used to run into a problem with some older BIOS where you needed a /boot partition at the start of the disk to be sure the BIOS could read it...
Mikkel - -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
On 03/04/2012 12:17 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.03.2012 21:13, schrieb Peter Larsen:
Only on systems that are dual-booted does partitions make sense. With Grub2 we can now have a single partition for everything - and the reason we have the partition table is due to the bios needs during boot.
is this a joke?
No. I think that Mr. Larsen simply misunderstood, or generalized too far. Nothing except (maybe) Windows cares about partition types or the boot flag, and starting from there he landed on the Island of Conclusions and decided that that meant that if you're not dual booting, you don't ever need multiple partitions.
I know -- Oh Ghod, how well I know! -- how easy it is to forget that most people don't have decades of computer experience and that things that are intuitively obvious to those of us who do are sometimes incomprehensible to the less experienced. And, of course, the requirements of those of us using Linux only at home aren't the same as for those using it professionally, especially when it comes to backups and security. Still, it's good to have some insight from the professional side if only to show us how different the two environments are and what we'd have to take into account if we were using Linux to run even a small business.
On 03/04/2012 12:26 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
You also used to run into a problem with some older BIOS where you needed a /boot partition at the start of the disk to be sure the BIOS could read it...
In fact, this is the main reason for a separate /boot partition. Once the BIOS code was updated to handle larger drives there wasn't any need for it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 03/04/2012 02:48 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/04/2012 12:26 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
You also used to run into a problem with some older BIOS where you needed a /boot partition at the start of the disk to be sure the BIOS could read it...
In fact, this is the main reason for a separate /boot partition.
Once the BIOS code was updated to handle larger drives there wasn't any need for it. It depended on the file system you used for /. Grub has problems with LVM and some file systems. There are ways to get around it, but it is easier to maintain a /boot partition.
There are still BIOS problems with larger drives. It is just that the size limit has changed, and how the BIOS react has also changed in some cases. It is always fun when the BIOS freezes when trying to get info from a large drive.
Mikkel - -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Am 04.03.2012 21:48, schrieb Joe Zeff:
On 03/04/2012 12:26 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
You also used to run into a problem with some older BIOS where you needed a /boot partition at the start of the disk to be sure the BIOS could read it...
In fact, this is the main reason for a separate /boot partition. Once the BIOS code was updated to handle larger drives there wasn't any need for it.
until the next updat elike ext4 will arrive
remeber it was NOT possible to boot from ext4 while it was already stable, at this time it was really simply convert / and data while keep /boot to ext2
not all you can do is really smart over the long
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 21:17 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.03.2012 21:13, schrieb Peter Larsen:
Only on systems that are dual-booted does partitions make sense. With Grub2 we can now have a single partition for everything - and the reason we have the partition table is due to the bios needs during boot.
is this a joke?
Nope.
you really want to install a OS and put systema nd data on the same partition? do this if you want but do not tell anybody this is a smart setup-design!
Have you looked at a Fedora installation since F12? That's the default setup. Your full OS and home and /var and /lib etc. are all on the same LVM physical partition. The only reason /boot is separate is due to legacy grub didn't support ext3 or 4, and that some very old bios's have some limitations on where the boot partition can be and what size it can have. With grub2 we now can boot directly from an LVM or MD device - there's no longer a need to separate system out. I for one cannot get why you distinguish between them. Whether the offset comes from a partition table or an LVM map, the result is the same - it's located on the same device and very very close to the root partition.
if anything goes terrible wrong with your OS you want to care about your data? your decision! most people would not if they have any knowledge
Tell me how your data is separated from your OS - and remember to include your logs, security settings, raid settings etc in that. They all live on the same PARTITION on a standard Fedora install.
I think you're confusing a partition with a volume.
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 12:44 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/04/2012 12:17 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.03.2012 21:13, schrieb Peter Larsen:
Only on systems that are dual-booted does partitions make sense. With Grub2 we can now have a single partition for everything - and the reason we have the partition table is due to the bios needs during boot.
is this a joke?
No. I think that Mr. Larsen simply misunderstood, or generalized too far.
That wasn't my intention. I did go a bit further since the following list from the original email is quite scary reading today:
/dev/sda9 174809088 205529087 15360000 83 Linux /dev/sda10 205531136 208603135 1536000 83 Linux /dev/sda11 208605184 221302783 6348800 83 Linux /dev/sda12 221304832 291960831 35328000 83 Linux
Nothing except (maybe) Windows cares about partition types or the boot flag, and starting from there he landed on the Island of Conclusions and decided that that meant that if you're not dual booting, you don't ever need multiple partitions.
lol - "Island of Confusions" - I like that! It is Sunday after all and time to relax a bit. I wanted to have a dialog about the number of partitions in the first place.
I know -- Oh Ghod, how well I know! -- how easy it is to forget that most people don't have decades of computer experience and that things that are intuitively obvious to those of us who do are sometimes incomprehensible to the less experienced. And, of course, the requirements of those of us using Linux only at home aren't the same as for those using it professionally, especially when it comes to backups and security. Still, it's good to have some insight from the professional side if only to show us how different the two environments are and what we'd have to take into account if we were using Linux to run even a small business.
Personally I have run all Linux systems that's been "mine" for the last 15 years a single OS systems. Dual boot is for desktops, not for servers. And for servers today, I see little to no roles for the traditional partition. Only system disks gets partitioned on my systems - all other disks don't even have a partition table. Absolutely no need for it.
And no, that doesn't mean I have "data" on the same disk as "system". I just don't use partitions to make that separation - because they cannot. The data and system would still be on the same physical disk, defeating the purpose of the original contempt of my statement.
On 03/04/2012 01:27 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
lol - "Island of Confusions" - I like that!
Thanx. That's from The Phantom Tollbooth, by Norman Juster, illustrated by Jules Feiffer. The thing about the Island of Conclusions (I must have typoed that.) is that you can only get there by leaping.
Am 04.03.2012 22:20, schrieb Peter Larsen:
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 21:17 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
is this a joke?
Nope.
you really want to install a OS and put systema nd data on the same partition? do this if you want but do not tell anybody this is a smart setup-design!
Have you looked at a Fedora installation since F12? That's the default setup.
so what, tehre are many not smart defaults that is why "customize layout" exists
i can even not imagenien how many people lost their data because this dumb defaults after messed up their installation and missing knowledge how to save their data before
nor is it smart to use LVM as default as example on a notebook where you never can install a additional disk and expand the LVM
it only makes additional layers and let pepople run in troubles if things running not perfect
Your full OS and home and /var and /lib etc. are all on the same LVM physical partition. T
as said - a dumb dfeault
he only reason /boot is separate is due to legacy grub didn't support ext3 or 4
well, and that is why it would be REALLY idiotic to say "hey now all supports each FS, we do not need /boot"
as i installed my systems with a 500 MB /boot there was no imagination that ext4 can be relevant in the future, but as it was released it was easy to use it for system/data
believe it or not - history will happen again we all do not know about future development
but you can setup your systems with the expierence of the past or ignore it and hope all will be fine
i chose smater setups and ignoring defaults made for "click, next,c lick, next" users
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 22:57 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.03.2012 22:20, schrieb Peter Larsen:
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 21:17 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
is this a joke?
Nope.
you really want to install a OS and put systema nd data on the same partition? do this if you want but do not tell anybody this is a smart setup-design!
Have you looked at a Fedora installation since F12? That's the default setup.
so what, tehre are many not smart defaults that is why "customize layout" exists
Yet the default is there as it's the one configuration that covers the majority of installations. You're confusing the exceptions with the rule.
i can even not imagenien how many people lost their data because this dumb defaults after messed up their installation and missing knowledge how to save their data before
If you override your LVM, sure that'll happen. But who does that?
nor is it smart to use LVM as default as example on a notebook where you never can install a additional disk and expand the LVM
Rubbish. I've been using Fedora as my permanent workstation since around F8. LVM has been a part of most of the installations, and for good reasons. Adding additional drives, doing backups, doing VM snapshots etc. are all features founded on LVM.
There's no overhead with LVM, and it's beats having fixed and static partitions. It makes absolutely no sense not to use LVM by default. Even if you only need to change your filesystem setup once, it's well worth it using volumes instead of physical partitions.
it only makes additional layers and let pepople run in troubles if things running not perfect
Go back and read about LVM. There are no extra "layers". It's using the same device mapper your partition system is.
Your full OS and home and /var and /lib etc. are all on the same LVM physical partition. T
as said - a dumb dfeault
That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree (see above as to why).
he only reason /boot is separate is due to legacy grub didn't support ext3 or 4
well, and that is why it would be REALLY idiotic to say "hey now all supports each FS, we do not need /boot"
We're not longer using legacy grub. Even with F14 we shipped Grub2 (it may even have been included earlier - not sure). We've had this ability for a long time now.
as i installed my systems with a 500 MB /boot there was no imagination that ext4 can be relevant in the future, but as it was released it was easy to use it for system/data
And the fact that we increased the requirement from 200 to 500MB never caused you issues? I saw lots of people on IRC who were in a jam because of that - and because /boot was a physical partition expanding it's size was/is quite a hazzle. It's the perfect reason for using LVM to begin with - even for /boot.
believe it or not - history will happen again we all do not know about future development
So because of this uncertainty, you want to pick the least flexible setup as default and "not dumb"? Seems to me, that it should be the other way around.
but you can setup your systems with the expierence of the past or ignore it and hope all will be fine
I'm not ignoring anything. You seem to be though.
i chose smater setups and ignoring defaults made for "click, next,c lick, next" users
You've yet to explain why it's smarter to be static and unflexible, on top of not having the availability of snapshot backups and other features provided by LVM.
Am 05.03.2012 00:35, schrieb Peter Larsen:
We're not longer using legacy grub. Even with F14 we shipped Grub2 (it may even have been included earlier - not sure). We've had this ability for a long time now.
uninteresting in this context you shipped and it was good to have a sepearte /boot
you and i do not know the future and somewhere in time there will be ext5 and GRUB2 not support it who knows?
i am one of the people not reinstall their systems because i am moving around disks between new and old and the most interesting ones re even not physicasl
as i installed my systems with a 500 MB /boot there was no imagination that ext4 can be relevant in the future, but as it was released it was easy to use it for system/data
And the fact that we increased the requirement from 200 to 500MB never caused you issues?
which requirement?
/dev/sda1 ext4 189M 40M 150M 21% /boot 2.6.42.7-1.fc15.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Feb 21 01:22:05 UTC 2012
well, majority of my machines are VMware ESX guests /boot is there even a own disk so increase what you like
* shutdown * klick -> drag * gparted * upgrade
So because of this uncertainty, you want to pick the least flexible setup as default and "not dumb"? Seems to me, that it should be the other way around.
/boot is for the fucking bootloader and the kernel this is not for a entire operating system so if this needs ever more than 500 MB some poor people made big mistakes
but you can setup your systems with the expierence of the past or ignore it and hope all will be fine
I'm not ignoring anything. You seem to be though.
i am the one who upgraded his last machine from Fedora 5 until Fedora 14 and maintaining 20 servers originally installed with F9, currently on F15
i chose smater setups and ignoring defaults made for "click, next,c lick, next" users
You've yet to explain why it's smarter to be static and unflexible, on top of not having the availability of snapshot backups and other features provided by LVM.
because my snapshots are mostly done on VMware ESX level and on workstations i am pretty fine with my RAID10, complexer things are even their in virtual machines because the have much more snapshot/backup/restore capabilities
and yes on the workstation the disks are flexible by size /dev/md2 ext4 3,7T 1,6T 2,1T 44% /mnt/data
Am 05.03.2012 00:35, schrieb Peter Larsen:
We're not longer using legacy grub. Even with F14 we shipped Grub2 (it may even have been included earlier - not sure). We've had this ability for a long time now.
BTW:
what does F14 matter in this context?
i am in production since 2009 with ext4 on machines installed 2008 so how DID YOU boot from ext4 in 2009 did you?
that is what i call history and not F14 i was on board in times wehre ext4 was only theory
On Mar 4, 2012 9:00 PM, "Reindl Harald" h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 05.03.2012 00:35, schrieb Peter Larsen:
We're not longer using legacy grub. Even with F14 we shipped Grub2 (it may even have been included earlier - not sure). We've had this ability for a long time now.
BTW:
what does F14 matter in this context?
i am in production since 2009 with ext4 on machines installed 2008 so how DID YOU boot from ext4 in 2009 did you?
that is what i call history and not F14 i was on board in times wehre ext4 was only theory
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Sir, please make an effort in what you write. is very difficult to read what you are saying and cursing dont help much. thank you and please continue your discussion
Am 05.03.2012 01:36, schrieb pringler01@gmail.com:
On Mar 4, 2012 9:00 PM, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl@thelounge.net
Am 05.03.2012 00:35, schrieb Peter Larsen:
We're not longer using legacy grub. Even with F14 we shipped Grub2 (it may even have been included earlier - not sure). We've had this ability for a long time now.
BTW:
what does F14 matter in this context?
i am in production since 2009 with ext4 on machines installed 2008 so how DID YOU boot from ext4 in 2009 did you?
that is what i call history and not F14 i was on board in times wehre ext4 was only theory
Sir, please make an effort in what you write. is very difficult to read what you are saying and cursing dont help much. thank you and please continue your discussion
first if you quote the mailing-list signature is difficult to read
what is difficult to read?
* not so long ago GRUB2 was no topic in Fedora (around 2009) * but ext4 got stable late in 2008 * in 2009 ext4 was fully supported for / * but you could not boot from ext4 * you needed /boot as ext2/ext3
so no problem on my setups having /boot all the time as own partition and in case of virtual machines even as own disk because you can expand it and with a little more work even shrink (new disk, data migration, throw away the old)
i am usually installing operation system ONE TIME for many years, with a little luck for my whole lifetime and if you have complex setups the migration / preparing is always better than install from scratch and rebuild all your configurations / customaziations
so in my wold LVM is useless, the big data are on sevrers this servers are ALL virtual machines and so there is no LVM needed for expand disks
the only exception with LVM is the fileserver, only for the datadrive because in 2010 it was not possible to create a single virtual disk with % TB
yes, i am speaking about professional IT where things are well planned and not randomly installed
* OS * disk layout * storage sizes * internal repo/buildservers * SAN storages
who needs LVM having his server on a SAN-storage which supports snapshots, having a virtualization layer supporting snapshots and at least having a virtualization layer supporting consitent backups of running servers?
home IT does not interest me in any way
first if you quote the mailing-list signature is difficult to read
what is difficult to read?
- not so long ago GRUB2 was no topic in Fedora (around 2009)
- but ext4 got stable late in 2008
- in 2009 ext4 was fully supported for /
- but you could not boot from ext4
- you needed /boot as ext2/ext3
so no problem on my setups having /boot all the time as own partition and in case of virtual machines even as own disk because you can expand it and with a little more work even shrink (new disk, data migration, throw away the old)
i am usually installing operation system ONE TIME for many years, with a little luck for my whole lifetime and if you have complex setups the migration / preparing is always better than install from scratch and rebuild all your configurations / customaziations
so in my wold LVM is useless, the big data are on sevrers this servers are ALL virtual machines and so there is no LVM needed for expand disks
the only exception with LVM is the fileserver, only for the datadrive because in 2010 it was not possible to create a single virtual disk with % TB
yes, i am speaking about professional IT where things are well planned and not randomly installed
- OS
- disk layout
- storage sizes
- internal repo/buildservers
- SAN storages
who needs LVM having his server on a SAN-storage which supports snapshots, having a virtualization layer supporting snapshots and at least having a virtualization layer supporting consitent backups of running servers?
home IT does not interest me in any way
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
I'm fixing my setup and can only write from Android 4 which have problems with mail list etiquette. if you read what you send to the list you can see mistakes in what you write and sometimes is hard to make sense of the meaning of the expression. I sent the mail because after a few times is hard to listen to a person that you can't understand. another thing, why are so angry? is a discussion about lvm and partitions not if star wars is better or not than star trek.
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 00:56 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 05.03.2012 00:35, schrieb Peter Larsen:
We're not longer using legacy grub. Even with F14 we shipped Grub2 (it may even have been included earlier - not sure). We've had this ability for a long time now.
uninteresting in this context you shipped and it was good to have a sepearte /boot
Let's try to keep to the subject. We're talking about a current Fedora - to understand why we did things we did in the past, we need to know what changed. So it's definitely on topic to discuss the difference between legacy grub and grub2.
you and i do not know the future and somewhere in time there will be ext5 and GRUB2 not support it who knows?
Again, if we stick to the subject of talking about the current release, we have a very defined abilities and consequences. Trying to plan for something you and I don't know about is quite fruitless.
i am one of the people not reinstall their systems because i am moving around disks between new and old and the most interesting ones re even not physicasl
In that you're definitely in the minority. In particular when it comes to Fedora. Going from one major version to another on the OS means you have to rethink what you're doing. What worked yesterday may not be what works today. There was a time I formatted everything with FAT; there was another time where ext2 was good enough - but as we have progressed and our technology gets better, I've adapted. To me that's what Fedora is all about. It would defeat the purpose of using Fedora if I didn't adapt to the "new way" of doing things. Otherwise, how would we find out what works and what doesn't?
as i installed my systems with a 500 MB /boot there was no imagination that ext4 can be relevant in the future, but as it was released it was easy to use it for system/data
And the fact that we increased the requirement from 200 to 500MB never caused you issues?
which requirement?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_PreUpgrade#Not_enough_space_in_.2Fb...
That requirement.
/dev/sda1 ext4 189M 40M 150M 21% /boot 2.6.42.7-1.fc15.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Feb 21 01:22:05 UTC 2012
I may suggest you try a new install now and then and see what has changed. 500MB is the default size for /boot and has been for the last few releases. And yes, it has to do with pre-upgrade requirements. Personally I think it could have been solved in a different manner, but it's what we ended up with.
well, majority of my machines are VMware ESX guests /boot is there even a own disk
And with that you certainly got far from what the average Fedora user does.
so increase what you like
- shutdown
- klick -> drag
- gparted
- upgrade
Well, with LVM you don't even have to shutdown. lvresize is all you need.
So because of this uncertainty, you want to pick the least flexible setup as default and "not dumb"? Seems to me, that it should be the other way around.
/boot is for the fucking bootloader and the kernel this is not for a entire operating system so if this needs ever more than 500 MB some poor people made big mistakes
We're not in total disagreement there. But it's where we are now. Every new install will default to 500MB for /boot - and if you try to run an upgrade and only have 200MB you're more than likely end up with problems. It's quite a common issue on #fedora.
but you can setup your systems with the expierence of the past or ignore it and hope all will be fine
I'm not ignoring anything. You seem to be though.
i am the one who upgraded his last machine from Fedora 5 until Fedora 14 and maintaining 20 servers originally installed with F9, currently on F15
Well, I'm happy that succeeded for you. I've not always been that lucky. So today I find myself wiping all by /home and reinstalling. Although I have a F14->F16 upgrade where I didn't do that and it almost runs with no hitches - almost :)
i chose smater setups and ignoring defaults made for "click, next,c lick, next" users
You've yet to explain why it's smarter to be static and unflexible, on top of not having the availability of snapshot backups and other features provided by LVM.
because my snapshots are mostly done on VMware ESX level and on workstations i am pretty fine with my RAID10, complexer things are even their in virtual machines because the have much more snapshot/backup/restore capabilities
Again, you're way beyond normal usage for Fedora. The fact you're using it as a server base seems to be rather odd to me - but if you like living life on the edge, be my guest :) The problem with ESX however is, that your snapshot doesn't include memory/cache. Backup, space management and VM (kvm) works extremely well with LVM - as a matter of fact, it's how we use Open Source to create VM snapshots :)
and yes on the workstation the disks are flexible by size /dev/md2 ext4 3,7T 1,6T 2,1T 44% /mnt/data
I've been a fan of mdraid for a long time. Although I once lost a mirror after a bad upgrade. But it's years ago and was with Centos - can't even blame Fedora for that one ;)
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 15:13 -0500, Peter Larsen wrote:
The "partition type" is something DOS/Windows uses (to a degree) and for backwards compatability reasons, you still see MS products use these labels. Linux, however, does not adhere to or use the partition types at all.
I do not think so. As I recall, set a partition up as being "swap" and the system automatically finds it as a swap partition. Also, formatting tools can read the partition type, and automatically choose the same file system, when formatting it.
Of course one can create a DOS partition, for example, then reformat it as a Linux one using an EXT3 file system, as an override, and the system won't care what the partition type was. But that doesn't fit into Linux not using the partition types at all.
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 17:12 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 15:13 -0500, Peter Larsen wrote:
The "partition type" is something DOS/Windows uses (to a degree) and for backwards compatability reasons, you still see MS products use these labels. Linux, however, does not adhere to or use the partition types at all.
I do not think so. As I recall, set a partition up as being "swap" and the system automatically finds it as a swap partition. Also, formatting tools can read the partition type, and automatically choose the same file system, when formatting it.
Anaconda may use it - but I doubt it. It's a lot safer to simply look for the signature of the partition content to see what it is. It's how md and lvm is detected, so why not swap and ext2/3/4?
What "format" (presuming you mean mkfs) reads the partition type? I cannot find anything in man pages or anything that indicates it reads anything to determine the filesystem type. Ie. how would it access the partition table if you do "mkfs /dev/sda2"?? The table is on /dev/sda not 2.
Of course one can create a DOS partition, for example, then reformat it as a Linux one using an EXT3 file system, as an override, and the system won't care what the partition type was. But that doesn't fit into Linux not using the partition types at all.
I've not seen it use - not even during installation. It would be interesting to see an example - so far I've never seen any indication it uses it, not even during upgrade/installation.
-
Digimer -
Joe Zeff -
mike cloaked -
Mikkel L. Ellertson -
Patrick Dupre -
Peter Larsen -
pringler01＠gmail.com -
Reindl Harald -
Tim