D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] More frustrations )-:

 

Who uses DOS - I do, and I make no apology for it. 
If you 
know what you want and how to ask for it, DOS is still an 
efficient way of getting there.

Ray. 

>----Original 
Message----
>From: simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Date: 13/06/2011 
20:37 
>To: <list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subj: Re: [LUG] More 
frustrations )-:
>
>On 13/06/11 18:55, Gordon Henderson 
wrote:
>> 
>> The tool compatibility thing is odd though - 
it appears that having your
>> partition table compatible 
with DOS is now deprecated - fair enough -
>> who uses DOS!

>
>Sorry lost me there, I thought your complaint was it 
stuck the partition
>on a cylinder boundary to be DOS 
compatible? Certainly that is what the
>fdisk/cfdisk manual 
page suggests is the behaviour, but then it thinks
>swap 
partitions are faster than swap files, so it is probably 
living in
>the past.
>
>> So what that boils down to is not 
slaving yourself to
>> "cylinder boundaries". These disks 
have an odd number of sectors per
>> cylinder, so not 
aligning them is good - unless you're using DOS. Which
>> 
I'm not. So I didn't align them - now cfdisk won't touch 
it. I suspect
>> cfdisk hasn't quite caught up with fdisk 
and still wants things cylinder
>> boundary aligned. Cfdisk 
was nice, but I don't care - I've gotten used
>> to sfdisk 
and bc.
>
>cfdisk maximise option didn't do the trick?
>
>> 
It would have been - and I did consider it - but I didn't 
fancy
>> downloading another 2.5GB for a full install. 
Besides, I've done it that
>> way before and not had any 
issues...
>
>2.5GB? Eek I'm not sure my disk is that large 
at work (actually I know
>it is 5GB and too small but I 
haven't stopped to fix it, actually simply
>eyeing the 
better machine on the desk opposite me and thinking time to

>upgrade it from XP).
>
>>>> Then I tried to compile a 
custom kernel
>>>
>>> Why? If it is to save a few seconds 
on boot, you've already spent that
>>> time many times 
over.
>> 
>> It's not to save time on boot. My last 
workstation had an uptime of 180
>> days. I do not reboot 
it. Apart from my laptop, I don't reboot things,
>> so I 
don't really care about boot time. I just like things to be

>> efficient - and when dealing with slow low-power 
processors, if I can
>> squeeze another ounce out of the 
system, I will. (My electric bill is
>> measurably less 
than it was last year, despite rising fuel prices)
>
>And 
recompiling the kernel reduces power consumption how? My 
usual thing
>is having to disable power saving features to 
make sure other features
>work reliably, which grates 
terribly, but usually it is all too deep to
>hack away at 
the real problem easily.
>
>I'm guessing the power used in 
a kernel compile is probably measurable
>judging by the 
heat generated when I left some CPU heavy process running

>the other day.
>
>> I'm trying to understand the changes - 
that's what frustrating! And yes,
>> I could have DD'd the 
filesystem and expanded it, but .. I still don't
>> really 
trust those things and would rather copy things the way 
I've
>> always copied - at least I learnt about UUIDs.
>

>The ext2/3 tools are well tested, but I know what you 
mean. I did
>something a few months back to prove it could 
be done should we every
>REALLY need to do it, and had to 
disable a whole load of grubby low
>level file system 
options in ext3 in order to do something using an ext2

>tool, and it made me pretty nervous.
>
>>>> Linux from 
scratch is looking more and more attractive ...
>>>
>>> If 
you don't know how to build a modern kernel to boot your 
system I
>>> doubt Linux from Scratch will make it 
substantially easier. Presumably
>>> you forgot to compile 
in a required driver (SATA?), or you passed a UUID
>>> to 
the boot loader and don't have anything clever enough to 
make use of
>>> it in the boot process (like urm initrd 
kernel).
>> 
>> You probably mean a modern kernel with 
modules and an initrd - in which
>> case, you're right, I 
don't know.
>
>I actually meant >2.6.31 but I can't really 
say I've had much experience
>of them either, as they've 
all just worked apart from ones which are
>pre-borked by 
stupid decisions by virtualisation provider.
>
>> I've also 
no real need to know right
>> now because I don't need it. 
Sure - it might be the way things are
>> going, but not in 
my world right now. I build systems for a purpose -
>
>I 
assumed this was a desktop because it was running a GUI.
>

>-- 
>The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
>http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list>FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq
>



-- 
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq