Customize alternate install CD with UEFI?

Liam Proven lproven at gmail.com
Fri Jul 22 13:16:54 UTC 2016


On 22 July 2016 at 14:53, Josef Wolf <jw at raven.inka.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 01:12:54PM +0200, Liam Proven wrote:
>
>> Re point 5: I do not recommend mixing LVM with other partitioning schemes.
>
> ???
>
> Having multiple volumes inside one LVM is the whole point of LVM (umm, not
> exaclty, but ...). For Windows (and even for fdisk in linux) this will look
> like a partition as any other partition with an unknown filesystem type. Only
> LVM-aware tools (e.g. device-mapper) will see the contents that are withhin
> the LVM partition.

Look, you are clearly smart and know your stuff.

However, so am I, and I am not trying to tell you what to you. All I
am trying to do is tell you where the things that you are doing are
things that, in my experience, are problems or can cause problems.

LVM is, in effect, a partitioning scheme.

What I am saying is very simple: do not attempt to mix 2 partitioning
schemes on a single disk.

So, if you have, for example, Windows partitions and you wish to keep
them, then do not use LVM, as Windows does not understand Linux LVM.

>> When I have used LVM on other OSes, e.g. Windows Server, it is all
>> or nothing: whole disk only.
>
> Windows have LVM?!? Didn't know that...

Windows *Server* has them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_Disk_Manager

It is, or was, a licensed version of Veritas Volume Manager:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritas_Volume_Manager

Most enterprise OSes have some kind of LVM.

However, they are now being subsumed into volume-management-capable
filesystems such as Solaris ZFS from Oracle.

>> You want to keep Windows, in GPT partitions, _and_ have LVM. Bad plan, IMHO.
>
> Windows don't care about LVM partitions. LVM is a concept orthogonally to the
> partitioning.

That is what I am saying. Do not try to mix 2 different kinds of
partitioning system.


> No. But I don't see why this would be a problem. There's no difference from
> LVM partitions and any other linux partitions. The only difference is that
> instead of an ext4, it contans an LVM "filesystem" which can be diveded into
> multiple "logical" partitions which, in turn can contain encrypted partitions
> (with the help of cryptsetup).

I still advise not mixing and matching different schemes.

>> > - Resizing worked, but to move the rescue partitions, I had to reboot into the
>> >   live-system and use gparted.
>> What's the problem with that?
>
> I could not figure how to move it. There are no menus, no context-menus, and
> drag+drop did not work either.

Oh I see.

Probably, it can't do it, but I don't know. I have only used LVM on
Fedora, on a work machine. As I said, I don't like it, I don't trust
it because I don't think it's a mature, well-tested technology, so on
my own machines, I don't use it.

>> > - Creating a big "physical volume for encrypted data" worked fine. But it can
>> >   hold only one partition?
>> Yes. That is correct, normal, desired behaviour. This is, as you have
>> said, a GPT disk. (Logical) partitions inside (an extended) partition
>> is a feature of the MBR partitioning scheme, the DOS system.
>
> Ummm, please don't confuse primary/logical/extended partitions with LVM.

It seemed to me that you were, which I was attempting to clarify. If I
was wrong, do please ignore it.

[...]

> I don't use /home for my data, since /home is polluted by the distro.

O_o

If you think that normal distro config files are "pollution" then you
should probably be looking at LFS!

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

> But (AFAIK) you can't keep /boot withhin an encrypted drive. Therefore, if you
> want an encrypted root, you need a separete partition for /boot.

I do not recall that limitation. I defer.

>> sudo apt-get autoremove -y
>
> Ah! That's what I'm looking for! Thanks!

Er, you're welcome?

> No! Gparted and the d-i partitioner can remove them just fine! Its the
> graphical partitioner from the live-DVD which is broken.

I think it does not attempt to handle such complex/non-standard setups.

>> If your system is reasonably specified, why have swap at all? Why not
>> just use ZRAM or the ``swapspace'' command?
>
> ???
>
> I have swap (withhin an encrypted partition), just in case the system runs out
> of RAM.

I know what swap is and does.

I think you perhaps should look up what ZRAM and ``swapspace'' do.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)



More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list