Juha Heinanen wrote: > Bob Proulx writes: > > Why no LVM? Using LVM is the way I always do it because that allows > > I didn't have any particular reason to avoid LVM. I just tried if > encrypted installation succeeds without it. Now that I tried with LVM, > installation was simple and worked without issues. Yes. I was thinking that might improve the experience. :-) Good. > One thing that I noticed was that LVM option uses by default ext2 for > /boot, whereas some people on the list suggested ext4. So I manually > changed that. Oh well. As you saw I had the opposite recommendation. I always use and recommend a ext2 /boot. However also note that I wrote that these days with a moderately sized 512M /boot that the difference is hardly worth discussing. I wouldn't change it after having done it. (Although since it is a separate partition it is trivial to do so.) Glad to hear you have things going for you. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature