headers
mike | 1 Nov 2004 03:45
Favicon

Re: partitons and proper order

Ray Olszewski wrote:
> At 03:14 PM 10/31/2004 -0700, mike wrote:
> 
>> [...]
>> I do use lilo. I have also been running a dual boot box with M$ and
>> lilo has been writing to the master boot record. But this time it's
>> all going to be Linux. I have a 30 gig harddrive so I would assume I
>> would be safe if I kept the /boot partition within the first 500
>> megabytes of the drive.
> 
> 
> That's a good bet, but the mappings on modern hard drives are so hard to
> follow, and so idiosyncratic, that it's not a sure thing. It''s hard to
> figure out where the BIOS thinks track 1024 ends ... and aside from 
> access to the kernel,  know of no special benefit any partition gets
> from being at the beginning of the drive.
> 
> My practice ... which has worked 100% reliably for me with drives up to
> 120 GB or so (I think I've even made it work with a 180 GB drive, and
> drives over 134 GB or so have real BIOS problems)... is to make
> partitions in this order:
> 
> hda1 = /boot
> hda2 = swap
> hda3 = /  (root)
> hda4 = /home
> 
> I'm not partial to using separate /var, /tmp, and /usr partitions ...
> but if I were, I'd put them and /home in the extended partitions at hda5
> and up.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
mike | 1 Nov 2004 03:54
Favicon

Re: partitons and proper order

simon wrote:
> hello
> 
> mike wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> I have installed linux a few times no real problems with my
>> installs. But going to move some drives around and do a fresh
>> install. I usually install with the below
>>
>> /
>> swap
>> /boot
>> /var
>> /usr
>> /home
>> /tmp
>>
>> I use ext3 and I am currently useing Mandrake distribution on an
>> intel compatible machine with ide drives.
>>
>> My question is does the order I create the partitions matter and if
>> so what would be the proper order, if there is one?
> 
> 
> the partitions order has some effects on your disk access time...
> a partition at the middle of the disk will have the best access time...
> it's generaly a good idea to place the swap here...
> a partition at the outside of the disk will increase the speed for long
> read/write operations... /, /usr or /home may be well placed...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ray Olszewski | 1 Nov 2004 06:18

Re: partitons and proper order

At 07:45 PM 10/31/2004 -0700, mike wrote:
>Ray Olszewski wrote:
> > At 03:14 PM 10/31/2004 -0700, mike wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >> I do use lilo. I have also been running a dual boot box with M$ and
> >> lilo has been writing to the master boot record. But this time it's
> >> all going to be Linux. I have a 30 gig harddrive so I would assume I
> >> would be safe if I kept the /boot partition within the first 500
> >> megabytes of the drive.
> >
> >
> > That's a good bet, but the mappings on modern hard drives are so hard to
> > follow, and so idiosyncratic, that it's not a sure thing. It''s hard to
> > figure out where the BIOS thinks track 1024 ends ... and aside from
> > access to the kernel,  know of no special benefit any partition gets
> > from being at the beginning of the drive.
> >
> > My practice ... which has worked 100% reliably for me with drives up to
> > 120 GB or so (I think I've even made it work with a 180 GB drive, and
> > drives over 134 GB or so have real BIOS problems)... is to make
> > partitions in this order:
> >
> > hda1 = /boot
> > hda2 = swap
> > hda3 = /  (root)
> > hda4 = /home
> >
> > I'm not partial to using separate /var, /tmp, and /usr partitions ...
> > but if I were, I'd put them and /home in the extended partitions at hda5
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter | 1 Nov 2004 08:07

Re: partitons and proper order


mike <at> kevino.org said:
>  /boot partition within the first 500 megabytes of the drive.

20 MB would be more than enough. I have 3 kernels on my /boot and use a little 
less than 10 MB

Regards

--

-- 
Peter

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Ray Olszewski | 1 Nov 2004 18:14

Re: partitons and proper order

At 03:07 PM 11/1/2004 +0800, Peter wrote:

>mike <at> kevino.org said:
> >  /boot partition within the first 500 megabytes of the drive.
>
>20 MB would be more than enough. I have 3 kernels on my /boot and use a 
>little
>less than 10 MB

You misread this, Peter. I did not write that the partition needed to be 
500 MB large, just thet is needed to be within the first 500 MB of the 
drive. In fact, I usually make it the first partition, and make it anywhere 
from 10 to 50 MB, depending on specifics of the system (mainly, of course, 
how many different kernels I expect to have on it at any time ... normal 
systems will, as you suggest, do fine with 10 MB or even less ... also how 
big the hard disk is).

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Richard Adams | 1 Nov 2004 20:33
Picon

Re: partitons and proper order

On Monday 01 November 2004 08:07, Peter wrote:
> mike <at> kevino.org said:
> >  /boot partition within the first 500 megabytes of the drive.
>
> 20 MB would be more than enough. I have 3 kernels on my /boot and use a
> little less than 10 MB

For what its worth.

AFAIK the reason why we ever needed a /boot partition was a way around lilo's 
former limit of booting from a partition ( or i had better say) a kernel 
image which was placed beyond the 1023 cylinder limit of old style BIOS's.
lilo does not have that limit anymore nor do most (i think i could say "all" 
bios's) now a days. So what i am saying is the following.

Today we don't need a separate /boot partition, one may have there own reasons 
for doing so, but linuxwise, there is no reason to have one thesedays because 
the old <1023 cyl, limit is gone for ever.

> Regards

--

-- 
If the Linux community is a bunch of thieves because they
try to imitate windows programs, then the Windows community
is built on organized crime.

Regards Richard
pa3gcu <at> zeelandnet.nl
http://people.zeelandnet.nl/pa3gcu/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
William Stanard | 3 Nov 2004 12:39

security level configuration

I'm running Red Hat 2.4.18-14smp; I want to enable Mail(SMTP) on the
server and already run ssh and httpd. When I go to the Gnome gui System
Settings > Security Level Configuration I see that the radio button for
Use default firewall rules has been selected. As I am beginning to feel
much more comfortable using vi to edit config files, I have been looking
for the config file(s) to edit. My ultimate aim is to enable this intranet
box to act as a web server and an intranet mail server, as well as accept
ftp (Dreamweaver, to update the web pages) and PuTTY ssh connections (my
student users). Which config file(s) must I edit, and does it (do they)
contain enough guidance in their comments to enable me to intelligently
configure my server?

Bill Stanard

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ole Martin Handeland | 3 Nov 2004 20:05

Re: security level configuration

I use webmin, and it is perfect for beginners (http://www.webmin.com/)
It's simple to use, and runs through your client's web-browser.
You can navigate to network->Linux firewall, and add a rule in your 
filters input table.

If you wont try webmin, i suggest reading 'man iptables'

Ole Martin Handeland

William Stanard wrote:
> I'm running Red Hat 2.4.18-14smp; I want to enable Mail(SMTP) on the
> server and already run ssh and httpd. When I go to the Gnome gui System
> Settings > Security Level Configuration I see that the radio button for
> Use default firewall rules has been selected. As I am beginning to feel
> much more comfortable using vi to edit config files, I have been looking
> for the config file(s) to edit. My ultimate aim is to enable this intranet
> box to act as a web server and an intranet mail server, as well as accept
> ftp (Dreamweaver, to update the web pages) and PuTTY ssh connections (my
> student users). Which config file(s) must I edit, and does it (do they)
> contain enough guidance in their comments to enable me to intelligently
> configure my server?
> 
> Bill Stanard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
> the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter | 4 Nov 2004 22:59

No Sound with Kernel 2.6.7

Hi,

Slackware10

When I installed the kernel 2.6.7 my sound was lost, the error message claiming it can not find module
via82cxxx_audio.c. Checking /lib/modules/2.6.7/kernel/drivers there was no /sound folder.

I then copied ../2.4.26/../sound into ../2.6.7../drivers/ it did not change it still claimed it could not
find my sound module after rebooting.

I then switched back to 2.4.26 and sound was back.

Could that be resolved and how?

A side benefit of the whole exercise was that all of a sudden starting kde programs such as kppp takes now only
half the time than before I tried to switch kernels. It used to take an annoying 22 seconds, now it takes only
11. ???????????

Thanks & Regards

--

-- 
Peter
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Beolach | 4 Nov 2004 11:48
Picon

Re: No Sound with Kernel 2.6.7

Hi Peter,

The 2.4 & 2.6 kernels use different, incompatible module formats, so
you can't just copy
the 2.4 modules over to 2.6.  Instead you will need to install a 2.6
kernel module for your
soundcard.  If your kernel was already configured to build your
soundcards drivers as
modules, all you should need to do is cd /usr/src/linux (or where ever
you 2.6.7 kernel
sources are); make modules && make modules_install.  Note that make
modules_install
needs root permissions.  Also also note that 2.6 normally uses ALSA
(Advanced Linux
Sound Architecture), while 2.4 used OSS (Open? Sound System).  This
means that you
soundcards driver module might have a different name, so you might
need to edit the
module name in /etc/modules.conf or where ever you define modules to
load on startup.
After this you should be able to load your soundcards driver modules &
hear stuff.

HTH,
Conway S. Smith

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:59:34 -0500, Peter <heisspf <at> skyinet.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Slackware10
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane