This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 23:58:06 -0800 From: Rafael <raffi@ark.linwin.com> To: Darlene Wallach <wallachd@earthlink.net> Cc: svlug <svlug@svlug.org> Subject: Re: [svlug] question re partitioning system On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 11:14:06PM -0800, Darlene Wallach wrote: > I'm getting ready to install RedHat 7.2 on my system. I purchased my > computer from VA Linux Systems. It came with their modifications to > RedHat 6.2. It came with a 30 gig hard drive. > > Since I'm upgrading to 7.2 I thought I should take the opportunity > to repartition my system. It is currently laid out: > > $ df -k > Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > /dev/hda3 1517952 1336364 104476 93% / > /dev/hda1 23990 3475 19311 15% /boot > /dev/hda4 27432860 4409404 23023456 16% /home > My recommendation: / 150 MB /usr 2-4.5 GB [1] swap RAM x 2, 1GB max. /var 32 - 500 MB [2] /tmp 100 - 350 MB [3] /home the rest /opt [4] That partition scheme allows you to upgrade without wiping out /home which can also be used for backing up /etc and /var/log if important to keep. I reinstalled Linux with different distributions for one department at work many times that way. [1] Upper limits for developers with lots of libraries, compilers, developemnt tools, etc. [2] depending on what the system will be doing. Website or system that keeps large logs, spool (email, printing) needs close to 1GB in some cases Some distributions keep large cache of packages under /var so it's size depends on that. I would probably make an exception and create a link to /home/???, since home is the rest of the disk space. Packages can be erased if more space is needed. [3] separate /tmp is also good to have. Some programs do not release all disk space back to /tmp after exiting. I'm not sure what the reason but RH7.1 reported out of disk space in /tmp while df showed 60% free space. [4] /opt is sometimes needed for some software. You can make it a separate partition, however, I normaly make a link from /opt to /usr/local/opt for simplicity. Separate /boot partition does no good these days since Grub, a default Redhat kernel loader takes care of boot beyond cylinder 1024 in case you have multiple OSes or versions of it. Those are my suggestions based on experience with numerous reinstallations, your situation is most likely different. Make sure you create boot floppy disk or you'll have problems upgrading the kernel if your system has Adaptec SCSI controller and it won't boot. Also, keep original CDROM from VA linux for emergencies. There is a reason for their version of RedHat linux 7.0.1. That brings me to one of the reasons for VALinux downfall, they were messing with hardware things they should never do. Another words, they wasted engineering resources with "reinventing the wheel" instead of coming out with truly different computer designs. For example, special disk brackets that do not provide more flexibility or serviceability, or you can't buy anywhere else do not impress me. > This makes it impossible to install software without installing it under > /home and making symbolic links. What is recommended for partitioning a > system on which I will probably install other software? > > Is more information about my system needed? Perhaps. You are going to have some problems with SCSI and/or ethernet on those motherboards, depending on the model, and possibly with booting from ext3 partition if you choose so. I had problems with SCSI and ethernet, depending on the distribution version, RH7.1 or 7.2 and kernel on FullOn 2x2 (2U size rack mount model). In one case I had to manualy configure ethernet card (in rc script) because it wouldn't take that from the default Redhat files. I exchanged email with VA support and eventualy got response from Rick Moen, who has good knowledge about VA linux systems. > > Thank you, > > Darlene Wallach > wallachd@earthlink.net Good luck, === Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:19:40 -0800 From: Darlene Wallach <wallachd@earthlink.net> To: Rafael <raffi@ark.linwin.com> Subject: Re: [svlug] question re partitioning system Rafael, Thank you for such complete info. Are you suggesting that I choose ext2 over ext3? What are the differences between GRUB and LILO? Are there advantages of one over the other? I should be able to use the upgrade option as opposed to new installation? === To: svlug@svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] question re partitioning system Darlene Wallach <wallachd@earthlink.net> wrote: > I'm getting ready to install RedHat 7.2 on my system. I purchased my > computer from VA Linux Systems. It came with their modifications to > RedHat 6.2. It came with a 30 gig hard drive. > Since I'm upgrading to 7.2 I thought I should take the opportunity > to repartition my system. And later Darlene Wallach <wallachd@earthlink.net> wrote: > Are you suggesting that I choose ext2 over ext3? If you're asking for opinions, I would suggest sticking to ext2 for now. ext3 will probably work fine, but ext2 definitely will. The primary difference is that if you do an abrupt shutdown (e.g. power failure) ext2 will insist on spending some time on checking the disk when you restart the system. Ext3 doesn't need to. But there are some occasional (but thankfully rare) reports of disk corruption with the new ext3 system. > What are the differences between GRUB and LILO? Are there advantages of > one over the other? Once again, lilo is older and will definitely work. Grub is newer and will probably work (I think it's been in use on Mandrake for some time). If I remember right, it's main advantage is that it looks prettier. When I did a RedHat 7.2 installation, I ran into trouble, and tried again with more conservative choices, and got it to work. My guess is that the graphical installer was giving me trouble, and the text-based option works better. However, it *could* be that Grub was having trouble for some reason with my old scsi card and scsi drives. In general, my experience with RedHat has been that they like to make new, whizzy and quite buggy software the default and let newbies struggle with it, and even the *.2 releases aren't perfectly safe these days. So my advice is to be really conservative, stick with the older and better tested options as much as possible. > I should be able to use the upgrade option as opposed to new installation? I haven't tried to do it, but personally I wouldn't think so, not if you're planning on doing repartitioning. Shrinking a partition is a tricky business, as I remember it. (By the way: you're not thinking about doing any of this without thoroughly backing up anything you don't want to lose, right?) > It is currently laid out: > > $ df -k > Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > /dev/hda3 1517952 1336364 104476 93% / > /dev/hda1 23990 3475 19311 15% /boot > /dev/hda4 27432860 4409404 23023456 16% /home Ouch. That looks hard to work with all right. I'm a big fan of small numbers of partitions these days. Currently my box at home is just set-up like this: Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/hda5 12910920 5462916 6792152 45% / /dev/hda1 23302 2361 19738 11% /boot The trouble extra partitions is that you're dropping a wall down on your disk that's going to be hard to move later if you realize you got it in the wrong place. Looking at Rafael's recommendation: Rafael <raffi@ark.linwin.com> wrote: > My recommendation: > / 150 MB > /usr 2-4.5 GB [1] > swap RAM x 2, 1GB max. > /var 32 - 500 MB [2] > /tmp 100 - 350 MB [3] > /home the rest > /opt [4] He's thought this through pretty carefully, but even so he has to stick in caveats in the form of things like that point [2] on /var. But most users don't really want to think these things trough that carefully, and don't really know what they're going to be doing with their systems in the future. For example, suppose you get interested in using the postgresql database? Redhat puts the database files under /var by default. All of a sudden that 500Mb limit might not be quite right... Further, Rafael <raffi@ark.linwin.com> wrote: > In one case I had to manualy configure ethernet card (in rc script) > because it wouldn't take that from the default Redhat files. I exchanged > email with VA support and eventualy got response from Rick Moen, who has > good knowledge about VA linux systems. By the way, Rick Moen is generally tremdendously helpful with linux newbies, though he's unfortunately not hanging out on this list at the moment. You might try asking questions on the balug mailing list some time... === Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:26:26 -0800 From: Rafael <raffi@ark.linwin.com> To: Darlene Wallach <wallachd@earthlink.net> Cc: svlug <svlug@svlug.org> Subject: Re: [svlug] question re partitioning system On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 10:19:40AM -0800, Darlene Wallach wrote: > Rafael, > > Thank you for such complete info. > > Are you suggesting that I choose ext2 over ext3? No, it's better to use ext3 in most cases unless there is some performance issue which I'm not clear about. > What are the differences between GRUB and LILO? Are there advantages of > one over the other? The same functions, except that Grub, in my experience, is more flexible. If you misconfigured something you can fix it at it's prompt, you can load whatever kernel that's not listed on the menu etc. I'm still learning about it. As always, read manual pages, HOW-TOs, or FAQs. > > I should be able to use the upgrade option as opposed to new installation? I strongly suggest to install from scratch since you need to repartition anyway. Use single partition, as suggested elsewhere, only if you want your "login" to look like: c: ;-) > > Thank you, > > Darlene > wallachd@earthlink.net > > Rafael wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 11:14:06PM -0800, Darlene Wallach wrote: > > > >>I'm getting ready to install RedHat 7.2 on my system. I purchased my > >>computer from VA Linux Systems. It came with their modifications to > >>RedHat 6.2. It came with a 30 gig hard drive. > >> > >>Since I'm upgrading to 7.2 I thought I should take the opportunity > >>to repartition my system. It is currently laid out: > >> > >>$ df -k > >>Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > >>/dev/hda3 1517952 1336364 104476 93% / > >>/dev/hda1 23990 3475 19311 15% /boot > >>/dev/hda4 27432860 4409404 23023456 16% /home > >> > >> > > > > My recommendation: > > / 150 MB > > /usr 2-4.5 GB [1] > > swap RAM x 2, 1GB max. > > /var 32 - 500 MB [2] > > /tmp 100 - 350 MB [3] > > /home the rest > > /opt [4] > > > > That partition scheme allows you to upgrade without wiping out /home which > > can also be used for backing up /etc and /var/log if important to keep. I > > reinstalled Linux with different distributions for one department at work > > many times that way. > > > > [1] Upper limits for developers with lots of libraries, compilers, > > developemnt tools, etc. > > > > [2] depending on what the system will be doing. Website or system that > > keeps large logs, spool (email, printing) needs close to 1GB in some cases > > Some distributions keep large cache of packages under /var so it's size > > depends on that. I would probably make an exception and create a link to > > /home/???, since home is the rest of the disk space. Packages can be > > erased if more space is needed. > > > > [3] separate /tmp is also good to have. Some programs do not release all > > disk space back to /tmp after exiting. I'm not sure what the reason but > > RH7.1 reported out of disk space in /tmp while df showed 60% free space. > > > > [4] /opt is sometimes needed for some software. You can make it a separate > > partition, however, I normaly make a link from /opt to /usr/local/opt for > > simplicity. > > > > Separate /boot partition does no good these days since Grub, a default > > Redhat kernel loader takes care of boot beyond cylinder 1024 in case you > > have multiple OSes or versions of it. > > > > Those are my suggestions based on experience with numerous > > reinstallations, your situation is most likely different. > > > > Make sure you create boot floppy disk or you'll have problems upgrading > > the kernel if your system has Adaptec SCSI controller and it won't boot. > > Also, keep original CDROM from VA linux for emergencies. There is a reason > > for their version of RedHat linux 7.0.1. > > > > That brings me to one of the reasons for VALinux downfall, they were > > messing with hardware things they should never do. Another words, they > > wasted engineering resources with "reinventing the wheel" instead of > > coming out with truly different computer designs. For example, special > > disk brackets that do not provide more flexibility or serviceability, or > > you can't buy anywhere else do not impress me. > > > > > >>This makes it impossible to install software without installing it under > >>/home and making symbolic links. What is recommended for partitioning a > >>system on which I will probably install other software? > >> > >>Is more information about my system needed? > >> > > > > Perhaps. You are going to have some problems with SCSI and/or ethernet on > > those motherboards, depending on the model, and possibly with booting > > from ext3 partition if you choose so. > > > > I had problems with SCSI and ethernet, depending on the distribution > > version, RH7.1 or 7.2 and kernel on FullOn 2x2 (2U size rack mount model). > > In one case I had to manualy configure ethernet card (in rc script) > > because it wouldn't take that from the default Redhat files. I exchanged > > email with VA support and eventualy got response from Rick Moen, who has > > good knowledge about VA linux systems. > > > > > >>Thank you, > >> > >>Darlene Wallach > >>wallachd@earthlink.net > >> > > > > Good luck, > > > > > > -- Rafael === Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:54:22 -0800 From: Walter Reed <wreed@hubinternet.com> To: Joe Brenner <doom@kzsu.stanford.edu> Cc: svlug@svlug.org Subject: Re: [svlug] question re partitioning system On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:17:46AM -0800, Joe Brenner wrote: > > Are you suggesting that I choose ext2 over ext3? > > If you're asking for opinions, I would suggest sticking to > ext2 for now. ext3 will probably work fine, but ext2 > definitely will. The primary difference is that if you do > an abrupt shutdown (e.g. power failure) ext2 will insist on > spending some time on checking the disk when you restart the > system. Ext3 doesn't need to. > > But there are some occasional (but thankfully rare) reports > of disk corruption with the new ext3 system. Hmm. My take on this is different. I'd rather take the extremely rare chance of corruption with ext3 than the much higher risk of data loss (and the slow reboots) due to abrupt shutdowns on ext2. Of course both ext2 and ext3 can have corrupt files due to abrupt shutdowns, but the file system state is much more likely to be clean on ext3. There are other FS options of course, but for compatability sake, ext3 is probably the best choice for most general purpose uses in my opinion. (Datapoint: I've been using ext3 on 5 systems for about 6 months with no problems. I did some testing early with pulling power plugs and everything always came up clean...) On the RH 7.2 vs blah subject, 7.2 has been fairly good, but it is bloated, and you will probably want to compile some of the software yourself instead of using the RH versions. I did have some trouble bootstrapping on a VA box with a USB keyboard, but a PS/2 keyboard worked fine. === Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:07:10 -0800 From: Jeffrey Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> To: wreed@hubinternet.com Subject: Re: [svlug] question re partitioning system Walter Reed wrote: > Hmm. My take on this is different. I'd rather take the extremely rare chance of > corruption with ext3 than the much higher risk of data loss (and the slow > reboots) due to abrupt shutdowns on ext2. That assumes you have abrupt shutdowns. If you use even a very small UPS (with some sort of mechanism for detecting power failures, which could be the UPS itself, or just an old modem *not* plugged into the UPS), you should never have them. The only reason would be a kernel crash, which is very rare. I've not had an abrupt shutdown in several years of running Linux servers. ===