lvm

[Peter Larsen]

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. 


-- 
Best Regards
  Peter Larsen

Wise words of the day:
 abuse me.  I'm so lame I sent a bug report to debian-devel-changes
	-- Seen on #Debian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120304/6c2ef016/attachment.sig>