SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] What about /boot [was] Swap = 2xRAM
- To: Howard Lowndes <lannet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] What about /boot [was] Swap = 2xRAM
- From: Glen Turner <glen.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:37:00 -1000
- Cc: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Organization: Australia's Academic & Research Network <http://www.aarnet.edu.au/>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (Macintosh/20061207)
Howard Lowndes wrote:
> Going slightly OT, but is the /boot partition necessary any longer.
> Wasn't that a method of getting around the "boot must be in the first
> 1023 cyl" limit?
It's not necessary, since the limit doesn't exist on modern
machines. There's no reason for it to be the default in an
installer beyond conservatism (which is no bad attitude to
hold, as people get annoyed when their box won't boot). It's
a very useful option to have as it allows boot limits on other
architectures to be overcome too.
I do like Linux's use of a partition as opposed to Microsoft's
use of immovable 'system' files. It makes backup and restore
of a system much simpler.
The One True Partitioning scheme is
Seriously, for a single-spindle machine I wouldn't stuff about
with partitioning unless you want to encrypt your home
directory with dm_crypt.
Where partitioning does win is in allowing you to share the
I/O load in a deterministic way across multiple spindles.
So an Apache server can always have a disk head over the end
of /var/log/httpd/access_log; or a transaction database can
achieve more consistency of response time by preventing
data access from causing index lookups to be queued. But these
are Big Iron considerations, and not useful for the average
user or server (where installing more RAM for more caching would
get more performance than adding spindles).