partitions

This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.



Subject: Re: Drive geometry
From: Jan Carlson <janc@iname.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:32:28 -0400


Fraser Campbell wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 13 Jun 1999, Merv Curley wrote:
> 
> > I would like linux to see the drive with the same figures as the BIOS.
> > I have 4 other drives on 2 systems, all are in LBA mode and Linux
> > fdisk matches the BIOS LBA figures on all those drives.  Can someone
> > put me onto the correct way to fix up this drive so I do not exceed the
> > 1024 cylinder total and could then install two bootable versions of
> > Linux on the drive?  I intend to install the drive as hda when the
> > system is reconfigured.
> 
> What I have done that *always* works is to make the first partition in the drive
> 10 MB.  When you install linux make sure that you mount that partition on
> /boot.  Whenever you build a new kernel copy it into /boot ... this ensures
> that the kernel and boot files are below the 1024 cylinder problem.  I always
> use cfdisk but fdisk is just as capable ... I can't think of any reason to use
> DOS fdisk.

Extended partitions created by Linux Fdisk or cfdisk will confuse
System Commander and Partition Magic, which will effectively
prevent you from resizing any partition.

In general, it is a BAD idea to create a partition for non-Linux
using Linux FDISK.  If you don't believe it, you probably have not
been doing that very long.

===

Subject: Re: Drive geometry
From: Jan Carlson <janc@iname.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:28:45 -0400


Eric Cifreo wrote:

> It's OK, indeed even optimal, to create your LINUX partitions with Linux
> fdisk.  However, you should not create FAT or FAT32 partitions for a Windows
> install with Linux fdisk if you intend on using third party tools like
> Partition Magic to manipulate them later.  Use the tools natively provided
> by those 'other' operating systems.

It's a requirement to avoid data loss even if you 
will never use third party tools.  This is documented
in "man fdisk" under "DOS 6.X WARNING".

In addition, extended partitions have a special problem.
  
If you create one using Linux Fdisk, Partition Magic may 
refuse to start.  That happened here.  I am talking about 
fdisk from RH6 and PM4.01, and extended partitions.
I am not talking about logical partitions.

To keep PM working, always create any extended partitions with
DOS or Windows FDISK.  If you insist that Linux tools are sufficient,
then you may need to stop using PM.

I still like PM, because it has abilities that Linux still lacks:
in particular, enlarging an ext2 partition nondestructively,
and formatting FAT32, NTFS, HPFS.
As soon as Linux can do these things, I won't need PM.

It is also NOT ok to delete partitions for another OS
with Linux fdisk. See 'man fdisk'.  If it was a fat partition, Windows
will not recognize that you deleted it.  If you then
create an ext2 partition in its place, Windows will
offer to "fix" your badly made ext2 partition.

===

Subject: Re: optimal partitions?
From: Ramon Gandia <rfg@nook.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 11:07:57 -0800


fengping li wrote:
> 
> Hi, there,
> 
> As a Linux fan, I have been upset on whether I have made the optimal
> partitions on my hard disk. I have a 4.3GB hard disk all dedicated to RH6.0.
> I like to install all the packages. So, I made the following partitions:
> 
> /tmp/hdb1     swap             127MB
> /tmp/hdb2     /                1000MB
> /tmp/hdb3     /usr             1280MB
> /tmp/hdb4     extended
> /tmp/hdb5     /home            100MB
> /tmp/hdb6     /usr/local       480MB
> /tmp/hdb7     /usr/src         1000MB
> /tmp/hdb8     /tmp             20MB
> /tmp/hdb9     /var             20MB
> /tmp/hdb10    /opt             20MB
> 
> I have just two users and also I like to install the other 2 CDs from
> RH6.0 box. Any ideas to give the optimal partitions on this hard disk on my
> PC.

Lets say you install Applixware.  That is going to be 200 mb
right on the /opt partition.  You will have problems.
/tmp will probably run into problems too, it frequently goes
many more megabytes.  /var holds all your logfiles, 20 mb
will not be enough.

If I may be so bold as to ask, why so many partitions, specially
if you are not sure you need them?  My suggestion is this.

hdb1   128 mb   swap
hdb2   2 gig+   /

that will leave the remainder of your drive unpartitioned, but
ready to be partitioned later if you need to splinter off some
of your directories.

For instance, here at Nook Net, where I use the squid proxy
server, I have found it useful to splinter off /var/spool/cache
as squid puts about one gig on it.  But I did not do that until
I saw the need for it.  Its on a separate drive now, as a matter
of fact. :-)

The more little partitions you create, the greater the chances
ONE of them will fill up.  If you have no spare space, and a
little partition fills up 100% you are out of luck and your
system will crash.  Where are you going to put the data
while you resize some partitions?

I see a lot of recommendations about putting this or that on
a partition of its own....all fine and good for the person who
wrote the post, but probably not applicable to YOUR situation.
I suggest using 60-70% of your drive in one giant partition, then
the rest is available as you get more experience with your
installation.

For instance, 1 gb on /usr/src means you are going to be doing
a lot of active development work.  C programs and the like.
An entire development kernel tree is much less than 1 gig, so
if you are not a developer writing C code, why 1 gig in /usr/src ?

See what I mean?

===

Subject: Re: optimal partitions?
From: Hal Burgiss <hdb@iglou.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:09:56 -0400


On Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 11:20:47AM -0700, fengping li wrote:
> 
> Hi, there,
> 
> As a Linux fan, I have been upset on whether I have made the optimal
> partitions on my hard disk. I have a 4.3GB hard disk all dedicated to RH6.0. 
> I like to install all the packages. So, I made the following partitions:
> 
> /tmp/hdb1     swap             127MB
> /tmp/hdb2     /                1000MB
> /tmp/hdb3     /usr             1280MB
> /tmp/hdb4     extended
> /tmp/hdb5     /home            100MB
> /tmp/hdb6     /usr/local       480MB
> /tmp/hdb7     /usr/src         1000MB
> /tmp/hdb8     /tmp             20MB
> /tmp/hdb9     /var             20MB
> /tmp/hdb10    /opt             20MB
> 
> I have just two users and also I like to install the other 2 CDs from
> RH6.0 box. Any ideas to give the optimal partitions on this hard disk on my 
> PC.
> 

How much one uses certain partitions/directories, really depends on a lot of
factors. I gather this is a fairly new install, yes?

Just some general observations... /tmp, /var, /opt all look to be on the
small side. But then again, just depends what you are going to be doing.
/ looks kind of large, considering how much you've put on to other
partitions. If it were me, and were going to redo it, I would free the
space from tmp, var, and opt and let them fall under /hdb2. With 2 users,
maybe increase /home to 256.


===

Subject: Re: optimal partitions?
From: Dominic Mitchell <dominic@cedep.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:13:39 -0400


>>>>> "fl" == fengping li <fli168@hotmail.com> writes:

fl> Hi, there,

fl> As a Linux fan, I have been upset on whether I have made the optimal
fl> partitions on my hard disk. I have a 4.3GB hard disk all dedicated to RH6.0. 
fl> I like to install all the packages. So, I made the following partitions:

fl> /tmp/hdb1     swap             127MB
fl> /tmp/hdb2     /                1000MB
fl> /tmp/hdb3     /usr             1280MB
fl> /tmp/hdb4     extended
fl> /tmp/hdb5     /home            100MB
fl> /tmp/hdb6     /usr/local       480MB
fl> /tmp/hdb7     /usr/src         1000MB
fl> /tmp/hdb8     /tmp             20MB
fl> /tmp/hdb9     /var             20MB
fl> /tmp/hdb10    /opt             20MB

It depends on what you are going to do.  Some will argue that
partitioning is history since the price of drives have fallen so
much.  

However if you partition your drive like you suggest you may find
some problems in some instance when rebuilding packages, compiling
large programs.  I find it useful for these reasons to have a much
larger /var partition(250-400M).  My home partition is also much
larger.  Just the data in /home/dominic is close to 350M.  I would
rethink / 1000M.  Why so much for / ?

For what it worths, here is what I have:

[dominic dominic] df -h
Filesystem            Size  Used  Avail  Capacity Mounted on
/dev/hda1              99M   46M    48M     49%   /
/dev/hda8             1,3G  101M   1,2G      8%   /data
/dev/hda7             972M  426M   495M     46%   /home
/dev/hda5             1,4G  764M   618M     55%   /usr
/dev/hda6             1,4G  360M  1022M     26%   /usr/local
/dev/hda3             486M   24M   437M      5%   /var


Cheers,

Dominic.
===

Subject: Re: optimal partitions?
From: Jan Carlson <janc@iname.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:29:56 -0400


fengping li wrote:
> 
> Hi, there,
> 
> As a Linux fan, I have been upset on whether I have made the optimal
> partitions on my hard disk. I have a 4.3GB hard disk all dedicated to RH6.0.
> I like to install all the packages. So, I made the following partitions:
> 
> /tmp/hdb1     swap             127MB
> /tmp/hdb2     /                1000MB
> /tmp/hdb3     /usr             1280MB
> /tmp/hdb4     extended
> /tmp/hdb5     /home            100MB
> /tmp/hdb6     /usr/local       480MB
> /tmp/hdb7     /usr/src         1000MB
> /tmp/hdb8     /tmp             20MB
> /tmp/hdb9     /var             20MB
> /tmp/hdb10    /opt             20MB
> 
> I have just two users and also I like to install the other 2 CDs from
> RH6.0 box. Any ideas to give the optimal partitions on this hard disk on my
> PC.

As a new user, it is best to install on only THREE partitions:
/, /home and swap.  Make swap=127mb, home=300mb, /=all the rest.

This way, nothing will overflow, and it's absolutely predictable.
Then observe how much space is taken in each of the areas above.

If you wish, then install again immediately, with lots of partitions, and
with the knowledge of the size each requires.

It's easy to install, and reinstall and you will learn more this way.

In any case, there is little or no benefit for the new user in
having more than 3 partitions, except for learning sake.

===

Subject: Re: Help configuring dual Linux systems
From: Brian <signal@shreve.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 17:33:12 -0500 (CDT)


On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, gnielson wrote:

> Hi, all:
> 
> I've been reading this mailing list for a while and am trying to figure
> out how to set up my Intel PC to support two versions of RedHat. 
> 
> I already have 5.0 on a 2.5 gig drive. I want to add two 10 gig drives,
> set up for RAID, and load 6.0 on the drive #2. 

generally you don't have your boot partition raided (software
raid)....although this can be possible with the right initial ramdisk etc.


> 
> I want to be able to dual boot either 5.0 or 6.0, with 6.0 on drive #2 the
> default.
> 
> 1) How to I install 6.0 on drive #2 with RAID support?

I would make a small root partition, install minimum functionality, but
install raidtools.  Boot the system, and then make your raids.

> 2) How do I toggle upon bootup 5.0 drive #1 and 6.0 on drive #2?
> 
	
LILO:

boot=/dev/hda
map=/boot/map
install=/boot/boot.b
prompt
timeout=50
image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.2.5-22
        label=linux60
        root=/dev/hdb1
        initrd=/boot/initrd-2.2.5-22.img
        read-only
image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.0.35
        label=linux50   
        root=/dev/hda1
        initrd=/boot/initrd-2.0.35.img
        read-only


By default LILO boots the first image listed, so it would boot 6.0.  If
you hold down shift at the lilo prompt on boot, you can enter "linux50"
and hit return, and it would boot 5.0.



> All are IDE drives, fyi. 
> 
> Is RAID an option when installing 6.0? 

I don't think while you're installing it, but yes after you install you
can make some raids.

> 
> >From reading the list, at least with SCSI (which doesn't apply here), I
> understand that Linux has trouble defaulting to bootup on Drive #2, which
> is what I would want ideally.

you just have to have the right parameters in lilo.conf.  I just ran into
this, and got some private responses which told me to set DISK= and BIOS=
in lilo to appropriate values.  For booting the scsi drive it was
DISK=/dev/sda BIOS=0x80


> 
> Do I need to edit the lilo.conf to point to drive #2?

you list it first, as I did above (hdb1 being drive 2, but I left lilo on
the mbr of the first drive hda).


> 
> Is there a restriction in Linux for 10 gig drives that I need to take into
> consideration?

no.  But you don't want your boot partition to be more than 1gig, other
than that you should be ok.

===


Subject: Re: Minimum and optimum size of root partition
From: Jan Carlson <janc@iname.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:23:31 -0400


Arnold.Kaars.Sijpesteijn@argylediamonds.com.au wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> What would be the minimum and the optimum size of the root partition?
> RH6.0

If you need to ask that question, then the best answer for you is:

   swap = 64MB
   root = remainder of available space
   NO OTHER PARTITIONS.

===

Subject: Re: Problem creating a filesystem on a new partition.  Please help.
From: Bill Carlson <wcarlson@vh.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:37:04 -0500 (CDT)


On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 jeremy@xxedgexx.com wrote:

> /dev/sda10         6133     6259   130032   82  Linux swap
> /dev/sda11         6260     8678  2477040   83  Linux native
> 
> This is what I get now
> 
> ny00-as004:~# mke2fs /dev/sda11
> mke2fs 1.14, 9-Jan-1999 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09
> mke2fs: Device not configured while trying to determine filesystem size
> 
> 
> What is causing this.  How do I fix it.

Try specifying the number of blocks, looks like mke2fs is unable to
"guess" the correct number of blocks.

mke2fs /dev/sda11 2477040

===



the rest of The Pile (a partial mailing list archive)

doom@kzsu.stanford.edu