Frans Pop writes:
> On Sunday 11 January 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>> Yes, at above 4 TB in kB based (LVM/crypto) calculation and above 4 EB
>> in the MB based case. I wonder what would be the overhead
>
> I'm not going to worry about 4TB support at this point.
>
>> >> I think it would be more
On Monday 12 January 2009, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Frans Pop writes:
> > On Sunday 11 January 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> >> Yes, at above 4 TB in kB based (LVM/crypto) calculation and above 4
> >> EB in the MB based case. I wonder what would be the overhead
> >
> > I'm not going to worry about 4TB
Frans Pop writes:
> On Sunday 11 January 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>> Yes, at above 4 TB in kB based (LVM/crypto) calculation and above 4 EB
>> in the MB based case. I wonder what would be the overhead
>
> I'm not going to worry about 4TB support at this point.
4TB and more will become quite no
On Sunday 11 January 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Yes, at above 4 TB in kB based (LVM/crypto) calculation and above 4 EB
> in the MB based case. I wonder what would be the overhead
I'm not going to worry about 4TB support at this point.
> >> I think it would be more logical to specify unlimited
Ferenc Wagner writes:
> Yes, at above 4 TB in kB based (LVM/crypto) calculation and above 4 EB
> in the MB based case. I wonder what would be the overhead
Of course I meant 4000 TB = 4 PB, not 4 EB here. And wondered the
overhead of compiling dc into busybox, for doing unlimited precision
and
Frans Pop writes:
> On Sunday 11 January 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
>
>>> short: the maximal size of the unlimited partition is specified as
>>> 1,000,000,000 in the recipes, and the numbers there mean MBs, so
>>> that's 1000 TB.
>>
>> OK, but IMO this is more a structural flaw in partman-auto's reci
On Sunday 11 January 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> > short: the maximal size of the unlimited partition is specified as
> > 1,000,000,000 in the recipes, and the numbers there mean MBs, so
> > that's 1000 TB.
>
> OK, but IMO this is more a structural flaw in partman-auto's recipe
> specification than a
reopen 510544
thanks
On Sunday 11 January 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Of course you may have solved it independently of my musings.
No, I based the patch I committed on the first part of your analysis.
> Changing k -> K in free size computations as I suggested fixes swap
> size with a 100 GB di
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reopen 510544
Bug#510544: Installer/partition guide tried to use 500GB as swap
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
you may need to use 'found' to remove fixed versions.
Bug reopened,
Frans Pop writes:
> On Sunday 11 January 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>> I can accept this, but then this BR should not be closed, as the 1 TB
>> limit (which hit the reporter) remains. People with big disks can
>> still get huge swaps, as no LV can suck up more than 1 TB.
>>
>> Sorry if I didn't
On Sunday 11 January 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> I can accept this, but then this BR should not be closed, as the 1 TB
> limit (which hit the reporter) remains. People with big disks can
> still get huge swaps, as no LV can suck up more than 1 TB.
>
> Sorry if I didn't manage to make that clear p
Frans Pop writes:
> On Friday 09 January 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>
>> The fix is to use kB units in calculating the free space:
>>
>> free_size=$(vgs -o vg_free --units K --noheading --nosuffix $VG_name |
>> sed -e 's/\..*//g'
>
> I have committed and uploaded this change.
Thanks. This helps
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> clone 510544 -1
Bug#510544: Installer/partition guide tried to use 500GB as swap
Bug 510544 cloned as bug 511442.
> severity -1 wishlist
Bug#511442: Installer/partition guide tried to use 500GB as swap
Severity set to `wishlist' f
clone 510544 -1
severity -1 wishlist
retitle -1 Possible simplification of partition/LV size calculation
thanks
On Friday 09 January 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> To the point: perform_recipe_by_lvm determines free space in binary
> kilobytes [kiB] by:
>
> free_size=$(vgs -o vg_free --units k --noh
Christian Perrier writes:
> Quoting Ferenc Wagner (wf...@niif.hu):
>
>> I have no base to decide which is better, but there isn't too much
>> difference; I can't consider either one wrong.
>>
>> The following patch contains an unnecessary change as well: lcreate
>> can use up all remaining space
Christian Perrier writes:
> Quoting Ferenc Wagner (wf...@niif.hu):
>
>> I have no base to decide which is better, but there isn't too much
>> difference; I can't consider either one wrong.
>>
>> The following patch contains an unnecessary change as well: lcreate
>> can use up all remaining space
Quoting Ferenc Wagner (wf...@niif.hu):
> I have no base to decide which is better, but there isn't too much
> difference; I can't consider either one wrong.
>
> The following patch contains an unnecessary change as well: lcreate
> can use up all remaining space by itself, there is no reason to wo
Frans Pop writes:
> On Thursday 08 January 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>
>> Looks like it's a problem with conversion to logical extents.
>> After running the recipe, perform_recipe_by_lvm settles on
>>
>> 3246000 0 3246000 linux-swap ...
>>
>> that is, on a 3GB swap, which is correct (300% of the
Frans Pop writes:
> On Thursday 08 January 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>
>> Looks like it's a problem with conversion to logical extents.
>> After running the recipe, perform_recipe_by_lvm settles on
>>
>> 3246000 0 3246000 linux-swap ...
>>
>> that is, on a 3GB swap, which is correct (300% of the
On Thursday 08 January 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Looks like it's a problem with conversion to logical extents.
> After running the recipe, perform_recipe_by_lvm settles on
>
> 3246000 0 3246000 linux-swap ...
>
> that is, on a 3GB swap, which is correct (300% of the 1GB RAM).
> However, it issue
Looks like it's a problem with conversion to logical extents.
After running the recipe, perform_recipe_by_lvm settles on
3246000 0 3246000 linux-swap ...
that is, on a 3GB swap, which is correct (300% of the 1GB RAM).
However, it issues
lv_create noc2 swap_1 1406
to create it, thus creating a 1
On the other hand, the pseudocode in
installer/doc/devel/partman-auto-recipe.txt gives reasonable results,
so its implementation is probably broken.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Even if I change in /lib/partman/recipes/30atomic
96 512 300% linux-swap
to
96 512 128 linux-swap
the size of the swap LV won't drop below 2.8 GB. Also, when it is
left as 300%, the final size does not depend on the size of the system
RAM (tested at 1024 and 128 MB).
--
Feri.
--
To UNSUBS
Christian Perrier writes:
>> The installer wants to use 33% of diskspace which is 500 G I G A (!)
>> bytes as swap space
>
> I'm personnally not in position to do such tests (moreover it may
> require a knowledge of partman that I'm not usre to have).
For a start, I could reproduce it. Crypto
Quoting Ferenc Wagner (wf...@niif.hu):
> Christian Perrier writes:
>
> > Investigating this might be fairly tricky as it will be difficult to
> > test our usual way (with virtual machines) as the size of the
> > installation disk obviously matters here.
>
> I fail to see the problem, virtual dis
Christian Perrier writes:
> Investigating this might be fairly tricky as it will be difficult to
> test our usual way (with virtual machines) as the size of the
> installation disk obviously matters here.
I fail to see the problem, virtual disks are the easiest to change
the size of. I'll try t
reopen 510544
reassign 510544 partman-auto-lvm
thanks
>> Well, this is a matter of taste and even sometimes religion..:-)
>
>> As nothing else went wrong (things were just not fitting your taste),
>> I therefore close this installation report.
>
>
> What ?
>
> The installer wants to use 33% of dis
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reopen 510544
Bug#510544: Installer/partition guide tried to use 500GB as swap
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> reassign 510544 partman-auto-lvm
Bug#510544: Installer/partition guide tried to use 500GB as swap
Bug reassigned from p
Quoting Christian Perrier :
Comments/Problems:
The installer/partition guide tried to use 500GB as swap space in my
encrypted volume group.
Could not use the auto partitioner, had to use a manual install...
I don't understand why you "had" to use a manual partitioning system...
Because th
Quoting kiu (k...@gmx.net):
> Package: installation-reports
>
> Boot method: CD
> Image version: lenny RC1 netinst i386
> Date: 02.01.2009
>
> Machine: Shuttle K45
> Processor: Celeron 450
> Memory: 1GB
>
> Comments/Problems:
>
> The installer/partition guide tried to use 500GB as swap space in my
Package: installation-reports
Boot method: CD
Image version: lenny RC1 netinst i386
Date: 02.01.2009
Machine: Shuttle K45
Processor: Celeron 450
Memory: 1GB
Comments/Problems:
The installer/partition guide tried to use 500GB as swap space in my
encrypted volume group.
Could not use the aut
31 matches
Mail list logo
