On Aug 25, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On the other hand, having /boot separate could be more robust in the
event of an unclean shutdown. The system won't boot at all if the
kernel file gets corrupted, so having /boot separate, and perhaps
mounted ro helps protect it.
I suppose,
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a big proponent of swap *files*. Once you allocate the whole
> disk, there no room left over if you want to add another swap
> partition, whereas you can add as many swap files as your heart
> desires, whenever you need them.
After reading this thread
David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There may be good reason for it still in terms of security. /boot
>> doesn't need to be mounted on a running system. I'm not sure if that
>> adds a lot of security though.
> I'm thinking no. To alter any of the kernel files you'd need root
> privileg
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 11:59:02AM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2007, at 5:23 PM, s. keeling wrote:
> >Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> On 08/24/07 11:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Also, is there any good reason to have a separate /boot on a modern
> >>>system? I always th
David Brodbeck writes:
> I'm thinking no. To alter any of the kernel files you'd need root
> privileges, and if you have that, you can do 'mount /boot'.
True for an intelligent cracker, but a trojan trying to patch the kernel
isn't going to know to mount anything.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSC
On Aug 25, 2007, at 5:23 PM, s. keeling wrote:
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 08/24/07 11:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
Also, is there any good reason to have a separate /boot on a modern
system? I always thought /boot was just a kludge to get around old
BIOSes that couldn't load anythin
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 08/24/07 11:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
> >
> > Also, is there any good reason to have a separate /boot on a modern
> > system? I always thought /boot was just a kludge to get around old
> > BIOSes that couldn't load anything that wasn't on the first part o
* Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-24 16:40:08 -0500]:
> Or go out on Ebay and buy some replacement RAM chips. If the chips
> on your Hell aren't soldered onto the mobo.
>
Yep, good point.
--
Regards,
Klein.
Hey, what do you expect from a culture that *drives* on *parkways* and
*par
David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd always heard that swap files are slower than swap partitions. Is
>that a myth?
Not a myth, just old information. It used to be the case that swap files
were slower than swap partitions, but this stopped being true sometime
around kernel 2.4
>Also
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 06:55:09PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 08/24/07 16:24, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> I read recently on this list that LVM is not portable across CPU
> >
> > Don't believe everything you read.
>
> That's why I qualified my statement.
>
> I think it was Doug Tutty who repo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/07 16:24, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> I read recently on this list that LVM is not portable across CPU
>
> Don't believe everything you read.
That's why I qualified my statement.
I think it was Doug Tutty who reported here that he had LVM prob
On Aug 24, 2007, at 1:18 PM, David Brodbeck wrote:
On Aug 24, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
I read recently on this list that LVM is not portable across CPU
architectures, so that you can't just upgrade your mobo to AMD64 and
retain your /home.
Well, now you've got me curious. If s
> I read recently on this list that LVM is not portable across CPU
Don't believe everything you read.
Stefan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/07 16:02, Klein Moebius wrote:
[snip]
> In older machines where hard drive physical speed can be a noticable
> factor in machine performance, it makes sense to to place your
> partitions that see the most activity in terms of read/write access
* Martin McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-24 08:10:41 -0500]:
> It appears after reading the fdisk manual, that it is
> best to put swap on whats left of the disk after calculating
> one's other partition needs. The boot image should end up in the
> lowest sector numbers. Do I understa
Celejar wrote:
> > Cassiano Bertol Leal wrote:
> > > If you use LVM you're stuck with a separate, non-LVM /boot partition
> > > AFAIK. Or is this outated info?
>
> I believe it is actually outdated information; GRUB apparently supports
> LVM these days:
>
> http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID
Check
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:51:14 -0400
Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All my drives have 2 partitions: a /boot (with ext2 or ext3) of about 100MB
> and the rest is an partition dedicated to LVM. The reason for the separate
> /boot is that GRUB does not know how to read files from LVM vol
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:14:42 -0700
David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Cassiano Bertol Leal wrote:
>
> > If you use LVM you're stuck with a separate, non-LVM /boot partition
> > AFAIK. Or is this outated info?
>
> I think that's true. I don't usually mak
On Aug 24, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
I read recently on this list that LVM is not portable across CPU
architectures, so that you can't just upgrade your mobo to AMD64 and
retain your /home.
Well, now you've got me curious. If so, this is potentially a
serious issue, because most
On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Cassiano Bertol Leal wrote:
If you use LVM you're stuck with a separate, non-LVM /boot partition
AFAIK. Or is this outated info?
I think that's true. I don't usually make the root filesystem an LVM
volume, anyway. In most distributions it's quite small and ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/07 12:51, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> I'm a big proponent of swap *files*. Once you allocate the whole
>>> disk, there no room left over if you want to add another swap
>>> partition, whereas you can add as many swap files as your heart
>>> des
Cassiano Bertol Leal wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 08/24/07 11:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
On Aug 24, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
I'm a big proponent of swap *files*. Once you allocate the whole
disk, there no room left over if you want to
>> I'm a big proponent of swap *files*. Once you allocate the whole
>> disk, there no room left over if you want to add another swap
>> partition, whereas you can add as many swap files as your heart
>> desires, whenever you need them.
> I'd always heard that swap files are slower than swap parti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 08/24/07 11:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> I'm a big proponent of swap *files*. Once you allocate the whole
>>> disk, there no room left over if you want to add another swap
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/07 11:16, David Brodbeck wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> I'm a big proponent of swap *files*. Once you allocate the whole
>> disk, there no room left over if you want to add another swap
>> partition, whereas yo
On Aug 24, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
I'm a big proponent of swap *files*. Once you allocate the whole
disk, there no room left over if you want to add another swap
partition, whereas you can add as many swap files as your heart
desires, whenever you need them.
I'd always heard that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/24/07 08:10, Martin McCormick wrote:
> It appears after reading the fdisk manual, that it is
> best to put swap on whats left of the disk after calculating
> one's other partition needs. The boot image should end up in the
> lowest sector n
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 08:10:41AM -0500, Martin McCormick wrote:
> It appears after reading the fdisk manual, that it is
> best to put swap on whats left of the disk after calculating
> one's other partition needs. The boot image should end up in the
> lowest sector numbers. Do I understand
It appears after reading the fdisk manual, that it is
best to put swap on whats left of the disk after calculating
one's other partition needs. The boot image should end up in the
lowest sector numbers. Do I understand this right?
I am about to reformat a 20-gig hard disk on a
5-ye
29 matches
Mail list logo
