Bug#355662: Installation report
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:54:02PM -0500, Adrian Irving-Beer wrote:
> Good points all. I did leave about 9 GiB free in unallocated LVM
> space to extend these if needed, but I may as well put that to use and
> resize later as needed. I'm thinking I'll double each of the above.
It is certainly always easier to add than to remove from a logical
volume.
> (This system will be the root node of a cluster, so there will be
> plenty of other disks, but this disk is the newest, largest, and
> quietest, and resides on the fastest machine with the most RAM. So I
> realise now that I may as well sacrifice mass /home storage for system
> operations space, and leave the slower disks & machines for all the
> data hoarding.)
>
> Thanks very much for all your suggestions; they certainly made the
> entire installation report process worthwhile. :) I'll do another
> install later to take them into account, but I don't forsee running
> into any additional issues.
>
> One last thing: I'll also be testing out the OpenSSI software and
> seeing how it fares on the 2.6 kernel, but I may need to also change
> to a 2.4 on my next install.
>
> I recall that (experimentally) booting a 2.6 install with a Debian 2.4
> kernel resulted in a "udev requires 2.6" message. What will I end up
> with for /dev if I do a 2.4 install? Old-style static, or devfs?
> Just wondering what to expect.
You should end up with a static /dev I believe. Only the installer uses
devfs as far as I am aware.
Personally I am not convinced anything is worth going back to 2.4 for.
:)
Len Sorensen
Reply to: