volter Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 I want to know how I need to arrange my partitions right during the installation for more efficient use, and what kind of format every partition must be? I have 300Gb hard disc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg2 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Are you going to install just one OS on this drive? How much RAM do you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniewicz Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 I would suggest ext3 for all partitions (unless you are dual booting as per Greg's post). My suggestion: /root partition: ~30 GB /swap 2 x RAM size /home ~whatever is left Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volter Posted April 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 (edited) I have 2Gb RAM and Im not dual booting. I didn't get what is ''/swap 2 x RAM size'' => Do you meen 4Gb? Edited April 9, 2009 by volter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theYinYeti Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 I'm not sure at all that 4GB swap is necessary. As far as I know, even suspend-to-disk will work with just as much swap as the amount of memory (2GB in this case). Yves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniewicz Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Do you meen 4Gb Yes, that is what I mean. 4GB is probably too much, but you do have 300 GB to work with ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volter Posted April 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 ok thanks, helped a lot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg2 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 I agree with theYinYeti that 2Gb of swap is plenty for your setup. I don't think you need 30Gb for the root partition /. I have three different dev environments setup on my system, here is my setup: [greg@halfway ~]$ df Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 9.1G 7.1G 1.6G 83% / /dev/sda6 82G 15G 68G 18% /home /dev/sdb1 57G 25G 30G 46% /mnt/storage As you can see, even with three dev environments, I still have 1.6Gb unused out of my 9.1Gb root partition /. So I would suggest that you need no more than 10Gb for /. Please keep in mind that this is only my opinion, many here will have a different opinion on this. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tux99 Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 (edited) I agree 30GB for '/' is too much but 10GB can get tight if /var fills up for some reason or if you install lots of packages (I filled up my 10GB / on a 2008.1 box and had to increase it to 12GB). I would do a separate 5GB /var to avoid filling the root fs (/) in case some process starts logging loads of errors, and a 15GB root fs. 2GB swap is more than enough (if you were really making use of all 2GB for swap the PC would slow down to a crawl...). Also as filesystem I would use JFS, it's as reliable as ext3 but a lot faster, especially with loads of small files like on a typical root fs. Edited April 9, 2009 by tux99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theYinYeti Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) For the filesystem, I would tend also to use Reiser3 or JFS rather than Ext3. I'm having more and more doubts on the matter, though, since Ext4 came into being. The kernel team seems very keen on placing Ext4 on the forefront, maybe at the expense of other journalized filesystems (that's only my feeling), and sure enough, Ext4 does seem to bring nice features and performance. Given that: — Reiser3 is doomed sooner or later, since Reiser4 is the successor and already half inodes in the grave; — JFS isn't talked much about (status?), hence doesn't benefit from the buzz-effect, and thus is not where people will go (again, just my own feeling); — The migration path from Ext3 to Ext4 is a painless and easy one; I wonder… Isn't it safer, after all, to go with Ext3? Yves. Edited April 10, 2009 by theYinYeti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tux99 Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) Ext4 is still way too immature, I wouldn't trust any important data to it yet. JFS is mature, very fast and actively mantained (as in: adapted to be compatible with new kernels), therefore right now I would choose JFS and that's what I'm using. In a year or so ext4 might be stable enough but as most people frequently reinstall their OS anyway choosing now ext3 just because of the upgrade path to ext4 is pointless (when reinstalling you can change fs type anyway). Also it has to be seen yet if ext4 is as fast or faster than JFS. With regards to filesystems I'm very conservative, I certainly don't want to loose data because of a filesystem flaw. Edited April 10, 2009 by tux99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.