On Sat, 2004-01-31 at 21:30, Will Trillich wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:56:25PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
> > My understanding is that lilo works off a system
> > map which is created at installation and is sector based. So, as long as
> > it can figure out where the kernel is physically pl
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:30:13 -0600, Will Trillich wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:56:25PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
>> My understanding is that lilo works off a system
>> map which is created at installation and is sector based. So, as long as
>> it can figure out where the kernel is physical
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:56:25PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
> My understanding is that lilo works off a system
> map which is created at installation and is sector based. So, as long as
> it can figure out where the kernel is physically placed at installation,
> it can map it. Then, when loading
Karsten M. Self said on Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:35:54AM -0800:
> Given that 30% of spam is reported (Inquirer news story 3 Dec) to
> originate from broadband-connected systems, minimizing the exposed
> vulnerabilities of _any_ system should be a high priority.
> Specifically: allow device and SUID
Marc Wilson said on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:01:12PM -0800:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 12:17:52PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> > Minor nit: netatalk requires a device node in /var to support Appletalk
> > printing. Admittedly, for most people, this is not an issue.
>
> Not arguing, but what device
"Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003:12:03:06:15:29-0800] scribed:
>
> See, variously, the FHS, and my own partitioning guidelines:
>
> http://twiki.iwethey.org/Main/NixPartitioning
Since Debian places logfiles under /var/log, I always create a separate
/var/log partition. If logfi
on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 12:17:52PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Karsten M. Self said on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 06:15:29AM -0800:
> > See, variously, the FHS, and my own partitioning guidelines:
> >
> > http://twiki.iwethey.org/Main/NixPartitioning
>
> Good page. I should
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 12:17:52PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> Minor nit: netatalk requires a device node in /var to support Appletalk
> printing. Admittedly, for most people, this is not an issue.
Not arguing, but what device node? Where? When did this start? What
creates it? The package d
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:04:22 -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> Paul Morgan said on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 07:33:27PM -0500:
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:20:05 -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
>>
>> You demonstrate a minimal understanding of the purpose of partitioning,
>> and, indeed, of the boot process.
>>
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 06:15:29 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> You're strongly counseled to read standard texts on Unix administration
> such as Nemeth, et al.
>
>
> Peace.
I think there's a text called "Bugs and Daffy Go Filesystem Partitioning"
which might be a good place to start.
:>
--
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:52:00 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:41:21PM -0500, Tom Vier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:39:16PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
>> > Is there any need for a /boot partition on modern hardware? Why do you like a
>> > sepe
Karsten M. Self said on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 06:15:29AM -0800:
> See, variously, the FHS, and my own partitioning guidelines:
>
> http://twiki.iwethey.org/Main/NixPartitioning
Good page. I should have known about the Jihad.
> - /var need only be writeable and executable (nodev, nosuid)
Paul Morgan said on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 07:33:27PM -0500:
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:20:05 -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
>
> You demonstrate a minimal understanding of the purpose of partitioning,
> and, indeed, of the boot process.
>
> You are, of course, perfectly entitled to set up you system any
"Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 at 12:07 GMT, Juergen Stuber penned:
>> Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> I guess there's no free lunch. But is there some way to schedule fsck
>>> at some regular time when you know you won't be needing the mount
Greg Folkert said on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:07:41PM -0500:
> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 17:20, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> > Paul Morgan said on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:49:52PM -0500:
> > Right... so, again with the "why put /usr on a seperate partition from /"?
> > Making / large enough to hold /usr certai
on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 02:20:05PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Paul Morgan said on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:49:52PM -0500:
> > > There are currently Debian packages which are needed at boot time which
> > > depend upon datafiles kept in /usr. discover is one of them, there may
on Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:41:21PM -0500, Tom Vier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:39:16PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> > Is there any need for a /boot partition on modern hardware? Why do you like a
> > seperate boot partition?
>
> yes, many bootloaders (aboot, silo, lil
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:20:05 -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> Paul Morgan said on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:49:52PM -0500:
>> > There are currently Debian packages which are needed at boot time which
>> > depend upon datafiles kept in /usr. discover is one of them, there may be
>> > more. In woody, t
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 17:20, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> Paul Morgan said on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:49:52PM -0500:
> > > There are currently Debian packages which are needed at boot time which
> > > depend upon datafiles kept in /usr. discover is one of them, there may be
> > > more. In woody, theref
Paul Morgan said on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:49:52PM -0500:
> > There are currently Debian packages which are needed at boot time which
> > depend upon datafiles kept in /usr. discover is one of them, there may be
> > more. In woody, therefor, a seperate /usr can cause problems. Does it
> > gain
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:35:09 -0500, charlie derr wrote:
> Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 at 02:41 GMT, Tom Vier penned:
>>
>>>On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:39:16PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
>>>
Is there any need for a /boot partition on modern hardware? Why do
you like a
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:39:16 -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> Greg Folkert said on Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:19:12PM -0500:
>> root should only be enough to boot with...
>
>
>> /etc = 45MB (with GConf taking 30MB of that)
>> /bin = 3.5MB
>> /sbin = 3MB
>> /lib = 35MB
>> /dev = 128KB
>> /root = 1
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:41:21 -0500, Tom Vier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:39:16PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
>> Is there any need for a /boot partition on modern hardware? Why do you like a
>> seperate boot partition?
>
> yes, many bootloaders (aboot, silo, lilo) can only read ext2.
Wit
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 at 12:07 GMT, Juergen Stuber penned:
> Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> I guess there's no free lunch. But is there some way to schedule fsck
>> at some regular time when you know you won't be needing the mounted
>> file system? e.g. at 3am local time, or maybe 3p
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:12:59 -0500,
Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 21:24, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 at 01:28 GMT, Greg Folkert penned:
> > >
> > > / and /var are machine critical. Let us remember I come from
Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I guess there's no free lunch. But is there some way to schedule fsck
> at some regular time when you know you won't be needing the mounted
> file system? e.g. at 3am local time, or maybe 3pm for night owls?
Or maybe while the machine is going down fo
MAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: unchecked 31 times
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:38:04 +0100
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 00:19, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 16:20, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> >
> > But just for the sake of argument, why do you say the root partition
> > sho
Hello Mark!
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:34:39PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
I use lilo and reiserfs on / and it works just fine. AFAIK, grub also works
with reiserfs and xfs, in addition to ext{2,3}.
From the grub manual:
|The currently supported filesystem types are BSD FFS, DOS FAT16 and
|FAT32,
Tom Vier said on Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:41:21PM -0500:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:39:16PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> > Is there any need for a /boot partition on modern hardware? Why do you like a
> > seperate boot partition?
>
> yes, many bootloaders (aboot, silo, lilo) can only read ext2.
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:59:18PM -0500, charlie derr wrote:
> Tom Vier wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:39:16PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> >yes, many bootloaders (aboot, silo, lilo) can only read ext2.
>
> I don't think this is completely true. I'm using lilo and / is ext3 (i
> have no
Monique Y. Herman wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 at 02:41 GMT, Tom Vier penned:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:39:16PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
Is there any need for a /boot partition on modern hardware? Why do
you like a seperate boot partition?
yes, many bootloaders (aboot, silo, lilo) can only rea
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 at 02:41 GMT, Tom Vier penned:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:39:16PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
>> Is there any need for a /boot partition on modern hardware? Why do
>> you like a seperate boot partition?
>
> yes, many bootloaders (aboot, silo, lilo) can only read ext2.
>
Od
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 21:24, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 at 01:28 GMT, Greg Folkert penned:
> >
> > / and /var are machine critical. Let us remember I come from Huge
> > Enterprise setups. Let's just suppose You are a developer writing a
> > PL/SQL 300-way innerjoin. Those tempo
Tom Vier wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:39:16PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
Is there any need for a /boot partition on modern hardware? Why do you like a
seperate boot partition?
yes, many bootloaders (aboot, silo, lilo) can only read ext2.
I don't think this is completely true. I'm using
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 23:17 GMT, Hoyt Bailey penned:
>>
> My system runs fsck after 37 mounts without a filesystem check.
> Thanks monique for removing your previous sig. It made me want to CC
> you. Hoyt
>
=P
--
monique
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 at 01:28 GMT, Greg Folkert penned:
>
> / and /var are machine critical. Let us remember I come from Huge
> Enterprise setups. Let's just suppose You are a developer writing a
> PL/SQL 300-way innerjoin. Those temporary files get written to /tmp.
>
For those of us running non-
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:39:16PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> Is there any need for a /boot partition on modern hardware? Why do you like a
> seperate boot partition?
yes, many bootloaders (aboot, silo, lilo) can only read ext2.
--
Tom Vier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DSA Key ID 0xE6CB97DA
--
To
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 18:39, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> Greg Folkert said on Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:19:12PM -0500:
> > root should only be enough to boot with...
>
>
> > /etc = 45MB (with GConf taking 30MB of that)
> > /bin = 3.5MB
> > /sbin = 3MB
> > /lib = 35MB
> > /dev = 128KB
> > /root = 15
- Original Message -
From: "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 13:23
Subject: Re: unchecked 31 times
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 19:00 GMT, Paul Morgan penned:
> > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:17:42
Greg Folkert said on Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:19:12PM -0500:
> root should only be enough to boot with...
> /etc = 45MB (with GConf taking 30MB of that)
> /bin = 3.5MB
> /sbin = 3MB
> /lib = 35MB
> /dev = 128KB
> /root = 15MB or so
> /proc = null
> /tmp = 50K or so (not a separate filesystem
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 16:20, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 20:29 GMT, Greg Folkert penned:
> >> >=20
> >>=20 Wouldn't this require rebooting first, or something, in order to
> >>fsck the root partition?
> >
> > the root partition should be small anyway. 200MB or so. Those that
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 20:29 GMT, Greg Folkert penned:
>> >=20
>>=20 Wouldn't this require rebooting first, or something, in order to
>>fsck the root partition?
>
> the root partition should be small anyway. 200MB or so. Those that
> have one single 200GB root partition are asking for trouble...
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:23:10 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>
> Is it just ext3, or do all journalling file systems obviate the need for
> fsck? IIRC, ext3 is slower than the other options because it has a more
> complete journal ... but I may be totally wrong.
>
> Just to be a pain, I might p
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 14:33, David Z Maze wrote:
> "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 16:55 GMT, Alan Shutko penned:
> >> Nick Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> I suppose mke2fs(8) is where that comes from specifically. Easy
> >>> to disable the period
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 14:10, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 18:53 GMT, Paul E Condon penned:
> >
> >>=20 Wait, wait; I'm confused. I thought one of the perks of running a
> >>journalling file system was that you can speed up the boot process by
> >>disabling boot-time fsck? =2
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:10:36PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 18:53 GMT, Paul E Condon penned:
> >
> >>=20 Wait, wait; I'm confused. I thought one of the perks of running a
> >>journalling file system was that you can speed up the boot process by
> >>disabling boot-t
Hello Paul!
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 11:53:26AM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
I guess there's no free lunch. But is there some way to schedule fsck
at some regular time when you know you won't be needing the mounted
file system? e.g. at 3am local time, or maybe 3pm for night owls?
Sort of difficult
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 19:00 GMT, Paul Morgan penned:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:17:42 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 16:55 GMT, Alan Shutko penned:
>>> Nick Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
I suppose mke2fs(8) is where that comes from specifically. Easy to
>
"Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 16:55 GMT, Alan Shutko penned:
>> Nick Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I suppose mke2fs(8) is where that comes from specifically. Easy
>>> to disable the periodic checks, though:
>>>
>>> tune2fs -i 0 -c 0 /dev/hda6
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:53:26 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
>
> I guess there's no free lunch. But is there some way to schedule fsck
> at some regular time when you know you won't be needing the mounted
> file system? e.g. at 3am local time, or maybe 3pm for night owls?
cron
--
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 18:53 GMT, Paul E Condon penned:
>
>>=20 Wait, wait; I'm confused. I thought one of the perks of running a
>>journalling file system was that you can speed up the boot process by
>>disabling boot-time fsck? =20
>
> I guess there's no free lunch. But is there some way to s
"Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wait, wait; I'm confused. I thought one of the perks of running a
> journalling file system was that you can speed up the boot process by
> disabling boot-time fsck?
It's a good thing to disable boot time fscks most of the time,
because it speeds
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:17:42 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 16:55 GMT, Alan Shutko penned:
>> Nick Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I suppose mke2fs(8) is where that comes from specifically. Easy to
>>> disable the periodic checks, though:
>>>
>>> tune2fs -i 0 -
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 11:17:42AM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 16:55 GMT, Alan Shutko penned:
> > Nick Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> I suppose mke2fs(8) is where that comes from specifically. Easy to
> >> disable the periodic checks, though:
> >>
> >> tun
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 16:55 GMT, Alan Shutko penned:
> Nick Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I suppose mke2fs(8) is where that comes from specifically. Easy to
>> disable the periodic checks, though:
>>
>> tune2fs -i 0 -c 0 /dev/hda6
>
> That's a very bad idea. As the manpage says:
>
>
Nick Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suppose mke2fs(8) is where that comes from specifically. Easy to
> disable the periodic checks, though:
>
> tune2fs -i 0 -c 0 /dev/hda6
That's a very bad idea. As the manpage says:
You should strongly consider the consequences of disabling
mou
Hi
That's not really a problem. The system does run the check programs
(e2fsck etc.) on every startup. These programs mainly check, if the
partition was umounted correctly. If there was a correct umount they
increase the mount counter, if not they check the full prtition and reset
the counter to 0
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:21:11AM +0530, Joydeep Bakshi wrote:
> Hi list,
> hre is a typical prob in debian. after particular days my debian show during
> booting * /dev/hda6 mounted 31 times without checking, check forcde* and it
> starts fsck.
>
> now my question is that has debian programm
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:21:11AM +0530, Joydeep Bakshi wrote:
> hre is a typical prob in debian. after particular days my debian show during
> booting * /dev/hda6 mounted 31 times without checking, check forcde* and it
> starts fsck.
>
> now my question is that has debian programmed to check
Hi list,
hre is a typical prob in debian. after particular days my debian show during
booting * /dev/hda6 mounted 31 times without checking, check forcde* and it
starts fsck.
now my question is that has debian programmed to check hard disk after 31
times mounting the disk ? if so how to chang
60 matches
Mail list logo
