- 浏览: 139849 次
- 性别:
- 来自: 上海
文章分类
最新评论
-
dwangel:
现在可以用WICD这个 东西来管理无线上网了。
关于Ubuntu的使用心得之一(解决wep无法无线上网问题) -
seamanjiang:
支持,这个要顶的
关于Ubuntu下的一些下载工具感想 -
eyejava:
Good WayMark.
用RAP来练习口语 -
finaleden:
某院士说了:中国科技没有哪个行业不落后西方十年的,it业同样也 ...
关于国内站点的一些思考 -
liuming:
是啊,说起这类问题确实很认人气愤,现在都不想提了。不过有时候也 ...
关于国内站点的一些思考
http://justlinux.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-147373.html
网上Google到的一篇关于Linux分区的讨论,里面的一些讨论实在精彩,在看的同时自己也长进了不少,现摘录其中自认为一段非常精彩的分析:
网上Google到的一篇关于Linux分区的讨论,里面的一些讨论实在精彩,在看的同时自己也长进了不少,现摘录其中自认为一段非常精彩的分析:
The idea of having to size different subdirectories for a Linux can put off some users.
I believe in earlier days when the Linux boot loaders were struggling with coping hard disks with more than 1024 cylinders it was a good idea to place the /boot, typically 100Mb from what I have read, in the beginning of the hard disk so that it is below the 1024 cylinder barrier. When I entered into Linux two years ago I never ran into a problem concerning 1024 cylinders and have proof that even the earliest boot loader Grub 0.91 can boot all the way to the end of a 300Gb disk. Thus the problem has been solved many years ago but users are still following like sheep.
There are attractions by having a common /boot partition if a user is interested in 2 to 4 Linux in a PC. He/she can then round up all the kernel and initrd files, place them together in this partition and edit the boot loader configuration files to boot each system "directly". This appears to me the "traditional" method. There is nothing wrong with it except it make chainloading nearly impossible.
To place a Linux in a single partition, say for 10 distros, a user will have a /boot subdirectory repeated in every partition. The arrangement does not waste space because all the subdirectories inside a partition are stacked together to expand or contract within that partition space. The kernel of each Linux is always available in /boot and so it can be accessed by naming its partition reference. Thus the single-partition installation has none of the disadvantages but more advantages than a multiple-partition installation for a distro, as far as booting is concerned. This is because the boot loader and its configuration file as created by the installer can be kept "intact" in its virgin state for reference and comparison. I think I must have accelerated my learning in Linux simply because I have 100+ boot loader configurations files to look at and compare with. In "chainloading" I just select from any one of the boot loader, place it in the MBR and edit its configuration files to boot the remaining systems.
The important aspect of booting with chainloading is that the commands are generic with only the partition number different. Therefore the same configuration file (or 99%of it) of one Grub or Lilo can be cut and paste into any other Linux (with the same boot loader) and will work exactly the same. It is a remarkably simple, neat and maintenance free. The remaining 1% is that the host Linux, which is the distro providing the configuration file for multi-booting the others, must be boot "directly" by naming its kernel and initrd file.
Thus creating one common /boot for many Linux is counterproductive if a user is intending for multi systems. Many Linux use the same kernel name without ending tail like “vmlinuz” and it can be problematic to put all the kernels together in a same partition. Leave them where they were originally created in their native partitions does make good sense if not for simple house keeping.
The other major argument of having multi partitions is that it allows a huge /home for storing personal data which can be as big as one would wish to have. I solve this problem by placing my personal data in a separate FAT32 partition so that it is common to all MS systems, all Linux, all BSDs etc. I can see a user sticking with one particular system and isn't interested in communicating its personal data with another OS can choose a simpler way of having a large /home partition. Having said that it is no different than having one huge partition for Linux where /home simply freely expands whenever needed.
I did not respond to the question on the choice of logical and primary partition for Debian because that is irrelevant in Linux. A Linux can be booted from anywhere in a hard disk but the majority of MS systems, BSDs and Solaris cannot survive without being in a primary partition. I myself also boot these primary partition dependent systems and so I invariable place all my Linux in logical partitions.
It is my belief that the primary partition dependent systems are adhering to the PC standard pioneered by MS. As every PC Bios reads the MBR and the 447th to 510th bytes is the partition table holding the 4 primary partitions' addresses and so an OS in 100% compliance with the PC standard relies on this information to boot itself. In fact MS has a common MBR for all its systems. When loaded all it booting instruction does is to examine which of the 4 primary partitions has the active flag switched on and proceed to load that partition starting from its beginning which is the boot sector.
Linux implementation is compatible with the PC standard but goes much further. Its boot loaders discard MS method by naming the "root" of the system to be booted up front. Therefore if the partition is already declared (by "root" statement in Grub or "other=" and "image=" in Lilo) then Linux can be installed in either a primary or a logical partition and its boot loader can still know where to find it and load it. Linux therefore has no use of the active flag and never uses the damn thing. As a Linux user I take pride in booting it from the high partition like No. 60 where no other PC system can be installed and reached by its boot loader.
VMware is another manger embedded into an operating system which can be a Linux or a Windows. I have it installed in the Windows version. Basically it is like a program for selecting other operating systems within Windows. In operation Windows is still held in memory at the background when say a Linux is loaded to operate in the foreground. Its main advantage is up to 4 systems can be run on one machine and the data and resourced are shared.
Its main problem is each system has to be held in memory and so it is any good unless you have plenty of ram.
VMware allows an OS installed into a host system but not a full implementation. The boot loader for example cannot be installed otherwise itself and the host system booting priority will be destroyed. This feature together with other bits and pieces make VMware only working with a limited versions of Linux.
The benefit brought about by VMware can be more economically achieved by running several PC with a KVM switch ( a KVM switch is a box using one set of mouse, keyboard and monitor for several PC), especially if there are older computer boxes around. I run 3 PC simultaneously this way and one of them has VMware installed. Personally I find more satisfaction in running systems in different boxes, at least I got the maximum performance in each one.
For learning Linux I would prefer to be able to access the full system. Many features in Linux are mind boggling powerful and one of them is its boot loaders. VMware denies my access to them for that I would never be a good supporter of VMware.
I believe in earlier days when the Linux boot loaders were struggling with coping hard disks with more than 1024 cylinders it was a good idea to place the /boot, typically 100Mb from what I have read, in the beginning of the hard disk so that it is below the 1024 cylinder barrier. When I entered into Linux two years ago I never ran into a problem concerning 1024 cylinders and have proof that even the earliest boot loader Grub 0.91 can boot all the way to the end of a 300Gb disk. Thus the problem has been solved many years ago but users are still following like sheep.
There are attractions by having a common /boot partition if a user is interested in 2 to 4 Linux in a PC. He/she can then round up all the kernel and initrd files, place them together in this partition and edit the boot loader configuration files to boot each system "directly". This appears to me the "traditional" method. There is nothing wrong with it except it make chainloading nearly impossible.
To place a Linux in a single partition, say for 10 distros, a user will have a /boot subdirectory repeated in every partition. The arrangement does not waste space because all the subdirectories inside a partition are stacked together to expand or contract within that partition space. The kernel of each Linux is always available in /boot and so it can be accessed by naming its partition reference. Thus the single-partition installation has none of the disadvantages but more advantages than a multiple-partition installation for a distro, as far as booting is concerned. This is because the boot loader and its configuration file as created by the installer can be kept "intact" in its virgin state for reference and comparison. I think I must have accelerated my learning in Linux simply because I have 100+ boot loader configurations files to look at and compare with. In "chainloading" I just select from any one of the boot loader, place it in the MBR and edit its configuration files to boot the remaining systems.
The important aspect of booting with chainloading is that the commands are generic with only the partition number different. Therefore the same configuration file (or 99%of it) of one Grub or Lilo can be cut and paste into any other Linux (with the same boot loader) and will work exactly the same. It is a remarkably simple, neat and maintenance free. The remaining 1% is that the host Linux, which is the distro providing the configuration file for multi-booting the others, must be boot "directly" by naming its kernel and initrd file.
Thus creating one common /boot for many Linux is counterproductive if a user is intending for multi systems. Many Linux use the same kernel name without ending tail like “vmlinuz” and it can be problematic to put all the kernels together in a same partition. Leave them where they were originally created in their native partitions does make good sense if not for simple house keeping.
The other major argument of having multi partitions is that it allows a huge /home for storing personal data which can be as big as one would wish to have. I solve this problem by placing my personal data in a separate FAT32 partition so that it is common to all MS systems, all Linux, all BSDs etc. I can see a user sticking with one particular system and isn't interested in communicating its personal data with another OS can choose a simpler way of having a large /home partition. Having said that it is no different than having one huge partition for Linux where /home simply freely expands whenever needed.
I did not respond to the question on the choice of logical and primary partition for Debian because that is irrelevant in Linux. A Linux can be booted from anywhere in a hard disk but the majority of MS systems, BSDs and Solaris cannot survive without being in a primary partition. I myself also boot these primary partition dependent systems and so I invariable place all my Linux in logical partitions.
It is my belief that the primary partition dependent systems are adhering to the PC standard pioneered by MS. As every PC Bios reads the MBR and the 447th to 510th bytes is the partition table holding the 4 primary partitions' addresses and so an OS in 100% compliance with the PC standard relies on this information to boot itself. In fact MS has a common MBR for all its systems. When loaded all it booting instruction does is to examine which of the 4 primary partitions has the active flag switched on and proceed to load that partition starting from its beginning which is the boot sector.
Linux implementation is compatible with the PC standard but goes much further. Its boot loaders discard MS method by naming the "root" of the system to be booted up front. Therefore if the partition is already declared (by "root" statement in Grub or "other=" and "image=" in Lilo) then Linux can be installed in either a primary or a logical partition and its boot loader can still know where to find it and load it. Linux therefore has no use of the active flag and never uses the damn thing. As a Linux user I take pride in booting it from the high partition like No. 60 where no other PC system can be installed and reached by its boot loader.
VMware is another manger embedded into an operating system which can be a Linux or a Windows. I have it installed in the Windows version. Basically it is like a program for selecting other operating systems within Windows. In operation Windows is still held in memory at the background when say a Linux is loaded to operate in the foreground. Its main advantage is up to 4 systems can be run on one machine and the data and resourced are shared.
Its main problem is each system has to be held in memory and so it is any good unless you have plenty of ram.
VMware allows an OS installed into a host system but not a full implementation. The boot loader for example cannot be installed otherwise itself and the host system booting priority will be destroyed. This feature together with other bits and pieces make VMware only working with a limited versions of Linux.
The benefit brought about by VMware can be more economically achieved by running several PC with a KVM switch ( a KVM switch is a box using one set of mouse, keyboard and monitor for several PC), especially if there are older computer boxes around. I run 3 PC simultaneously this way and one of them has VMware installed. Personally I find more satisfaction in running systems in different boxes, at least I got the maximum performance in each one.
For learning Linux I would prefer to be able to access the full system. Many features in Linux are mind boggling powerful and one of them is its boot loaders. VMware denies my access to them for that I would never be a good supporter of VMware.
发表评论
-
惨痛教训:一定要做CHECKSUM
2007-08-19 20:46 2598最近要为自己的台式装feisty,于是去官网上下了704 de ... -
最近通过升级部分解决的两个小问题
2007-08-07 00:24 1480最近在UBUNTU下最让人annoying的两件事: 1。JA ... -
EDGY下的Microphone失效解决方法
2007-07-10 21:09 1796虽然用U已经接近半年,但是却一直没机会使用MIC,最近由于一些 ... -
关于国内站点的一些思考
2007-05-02 15:46 2203其实我要装虚拟机的另一个原因就是,国内的网站对于开源,甚至说是 ... -
QQ连不上了,damn
2007-03-08 22:20 1349NND,今天开始Gaim连接QQ老失败,难道又是腾讯在搞鬼? -
关于Ubuntu下的一些下载工具感想
2007-03-07 00:16 22650用Ubuntu有一段时间了, ... -
今天的一点收获
2007-03-04 05:03 1564今天有两个意外,一个是在源上有了新版的文泉驿正式版下载0.8版 ... -
关于tree指令
2007-02-28 03:29 1817以前在Win下用过一个tree指令,可以显示目录结构。而Lin ... -
关于Ubuntu中使用Eclipse的一点小问题
2007-02-28 01:21 1300我的JDK是通过Synaptic安装的,因为平时在WIN中装过 ... -
Gaim与scim的不兼容问题
2007-02-26 22:01 1169快被整得崩溃了,gaim现在挂的太频繁了。可以肯定,是和sci ... -
搬迁前的一些准备
2007-01-21 21:19 1177常用软件列表 日常类 1.Bitcomet-----& ... -
关于Ubuntu的使用心得之一(解决wep无法无线上网问题)
2007-01-31 03:24 20427装了Ubuntu有一周多了,期间自然是走了些弯路,不过还是颇有 ... -
UBUNTU下的噪音问题
2007-02-12 02:25 2812前几天升级了一下内核,但是之后出现了问题。无论是平时系统声音还 ... -
安装tomcat
2007-02-21 02:12 1323装汤母猫是必须的,毕竟还是民工嘛。去apache的网站down ... -
安装两个常用的数据库
2007-02-23 23:43 1122社会进步了,linux也鸟枪换炮了,现在在ubuntu的培养下 ...
相关推荐
linux加密分区 linux加密分区linux加密分区
在win下读取linux分区中文件的工具
Linux 分区扩容Linux 分区扩容Linux 分区扩容Linux 分区扩容
linux磁盘分区简介 linux磁盘分区简介
在安装双系统下,在windows系统中访问Linux分区中的资源,一套软件及其说明
本人刚刚做了linux划分分区详解有截图; 还有分区详解;希望对大家有用; linux为企业版!
linux分区之逻辑卷,详细讲解了linux分区的概念,并以逻辑卷为重点,举例演示了逻辑卷的创建、合并、删除等等实例。
支持从EXT3分区向外拷贝数据,但是不支持直接修改删除。速度到还可以接受,而且是个免费的绿色软件。
菜鸟级的Linux分区教程 分区是Linux学习的开始,各位加油
Linux分区及复制.pdf
关于linux 怎么样分区,以及分区大小 以及在在搭建不同系统架构时分区的考虑因素
讲解Linux硬盘分区步骤 入门级的linux硬盘分区
linux硬盘分区工具
linux分区详解
验证过的超级好用的linux下分区表修复工具,支持各种分区格式
该资源是ios文件,傻瓜式使用,linux分区使用。虚拟机上的linux也能用,方法:点击CD/DVD->设备状态,启动时连接-》连接,使用ios镜像文件,然后选中下载的资源,然后正常启动系统,启动时快速按一下esc,进入cd,...
linux自动分区非常方便的实现自动化的在根目录新建出www目录并自动挂载
Linux下分区详解
在windows下如何备份linux分区.zip
学习linux下建立mtd分区必须的资料