Hi guys, after quick read about ssd, I have a couple of question: 1. My friend have new server with a ssd installed. He plan to RHEL 5.7 (I don't know why he choose this) on it. On redhat website, it say something like this: "However, if the device does not export topology information, Red Hat recommends that the first partition be created at a 1MB boundary." What does it mean by 1MB boundary? Does it mean he have to create 1MB free space in front or he have to create a 1MB partition in front of his actual partition(s)?
2. Is it possible to combine TRIM support and ext3 partition (AFAIK, RHEL 5.7 haven't support ext4)? *i hope this is not count as hijacking On 8/14/12, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:55:31 -0400 > Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Alan McKinnon >> <alan.mckin...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:23 -0400 >> > Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Neil Bothwick >> > > <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:11:37 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > > I have one of those. But I decided to stick with >> > > > > > traditional DOS partitioning style and grub instead of GPT >> > > > > > and grub2. >> > > > > >> > > > > I am leaning toward traditional partitioning, but with >> > > > > grub2. Do those two not mix well? >> > > > >> > > > GRUB2 works fine with MBR partition tables. But if you're >> > > > starting from scratch, you may as well use GPT and get rid of >> > > > the legacy MBR limitations and fragility. >> > > > >> > > >> > > I'm not dissing GPT...but what's fragile about MBR? >> > >> > it's 30 years old, >> > only 4 primary partitions, >> > only 16 extended partitions, >> > it's got that weird DOS boot flag thing, >> > it all has to fit in one sector. >> > >> > I had to fix a mispartitioned disk over the weekend, this really >> > should have been a simple mv-type operation, but because all 4 >> > primary partitions were in use I had to disable swap and use it as >> > a leap-frog area. It felt like I was playing 15 pieces with the >> > disk. That's fragile - not that the disk breaks, but that it breaks >> > my ability to set the thing up easily. >> > >> > Basically, mbr was built to cater for the needs of DOS-3. In the >> > meantime, 1982 called and they want their last 30 years back. >> > >> > Just because we can hack workarounds into it to get it to function >> > doesn't mean we should continue to use it. >> > >> >> You misunderstand me. I wasn't arguing that GPT wasn't perhaps more >> elegant than MBR and dos partitions. I wanted to know what was >> _fragile_ about MBR. Completely different things. > > I did answer (somewhat obliquely). > > mbr as a single isolated unit is not especially fragile; very little > software is and bits don't magically "rot" > > It's the system into which the sysadmin inserts mbr that is fragile. > The whole system is fragile like an egg is fragile - it can't withstand > much manhandling or moving of stuff around before some mistake wreaks > everything, and that is mostly due to mbr's limits. > > It's not semantic nitpicking here, if the system as a unit becomes > fragile as a result of part X, then the system is still fragile. > > -- > Alan McKinnon > alan.mckin...@gmail.com > > > -- Salam, J.Marcos S. Sent from X1™
