<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
ISTR that 100M is standard for the default /boot. Perhaps the
upgrade stuff writes in /boot? Dunno.<br>
<br>
In any case "one cylinder" is only about 8G. 63 sectors times 255
heads is 16065, which times 512 bytes is<br>
just shy of 8G. Even at 255 sectors you're only up to 32G.<br>
<br>
I find your comparison of F6 vs F12 quite interesting. I have also
complained about Gratuitous Complexity in the Window System...why
are things Actually Slower than they were 20 years ago?<br>
<br>
Back in the Old Days, we used to mock overblown programs with the
term "Feechers".<br>
<br>
I wonder if the systems would run better if the Window Manager ran
at a higher nice value than the apps, and the X Server at a higher
one still.<br>
<br>
JIM<br>
<br>
On 6/19/2011 12:31 PM, Walt Smith wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:465406.3892.qm@web120005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;
font-size: 12pt;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't recall anyone saying why /boot needs so much</div>
<div>space on an upgrade.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have 3 kernels on F12. I did rpm -i rather than rpm -U<br>
</div>
<div>The biggest files in /boot are:<br>
</div>
<div>initfs 11 meg</div>
<div>vmlinuz 3.3 meg</div>
<div>system.map 1.6 megs</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So I have 3 of each with a total /boot space of about 50
megs</div>
<div>including misc files such as grub etc, most of which are
"small".<br>
</div>
<div>I can see some reason where an "upgrade" might require a
bit more</div>
<div>space that a single kernel install. But gee whizz !!!<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The numbers bandied about suggest that the /boot wants to
occupy</div>
<div>a full cylinder of a disk ( or rather some upgrade script
program</div>
<div>wants the space) (true: ???? , ????).<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-------<br>
</div>
<div>As an aside, I fired up a FC6 yesterday.</div>
<div>The terminal fonts are nicer than F12. The apps start
faster.</div>
<div>They run smooth, the mouse is most responsive.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>F12 is on a 2.8 gig box with 1 gig ram.</div>
<div>FC6 is on a 667 mhz box with 512 megs ram.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Generally, over the years this has always been the case:
older runs faster</div>
<div>on slower hardware ( I'd say a dozen comparisons ). The
older distros</div>
<div>my have a (very) few less features.... but the sound
plays and the movies</div>
<div>play. It's the incompats with all the yearly "newer"
versions of the <br>
</div>
<div>data files and servers that force me to upgrade my desktop
OS.</div>
<div>I was also surprised how little difference there was
between the apps in FC6 and F12.<br>
</div>
<div>Memory ( human) can play tricks. But I also preferred the
look and feel of the</div>
<div>graphical boot window ( progress bar) and the FC6 desktop.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'd been looking forward ( somewhat) to upgrading ( new
install on other disk) <br>
</div>
<div>to F15. But I think I'll wait til the "next" edition
(F16). Guess I should check the <br>
</div>
<div>dev list to see what will be "new" or greatly improved in
F16. (if anyone wants to donate</div>
<div>to ca-list the improvements, please say). <br>
</div>
<br>
I know I've mention this subject before. But it's been awhile
and thought with the recent<br>
thread "new vs upgrade install" might be worth simply repeating
at this time. Heaven knows<br>
how much longer the desktop will exist. Most likely in 3 years,
the tablets ( or smartphones)<br>
will have enough power that desktops go away forever and laptops
wilt into server class performance<br>
machines.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Walt............</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Message: 3<br>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:02:38 -0700 (PDT)<br>
From: Bryan J Smith <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org"><span class="yshortcuts"
id="lw_1308499293_16">b.j.smith@ieee.org</span></a>><br>
Subject: Re: [CALUG] Fedora upgrade unsuccessful<br>
To: Joe <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:joe_tseng@hotmail.com">joe_tseng@hotmail.com</a>>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:calug@unknownlamer.org">calug@unknownlamer.org</a><br>
Message-ID: <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:521249.81174.qm@web110813.mail.gq1.yahoo.com"><span
class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1308499293_17">521249.81174.qm@web110813.mail.gq1.yahoo.com</span></a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
Yep, 200MB isn't going to be enough for /boot. Recommend
512MiB or 1GiB <br>
(1024MiB) at least.<br>
<br>
As far as requiring a "fresh install," that's not true at
all. Use a Resizing <br>
Boot CD, run system-config-lvm to shrink the LV-VG-PV and then
gparted to <br>
increase the size of /boot.<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Celebrating over 13,000 emails in my Yahoo Inbox !<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255);
margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new
york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new
york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
CALUG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CALUG@unknownlamer.org">CALUG@unknownlamer.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.unknownlamer.org/listinfo/calug">http://lists.unknownlamer.org/listinfo/calug</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>