Jump to content

Arrange partitions


Recommended Posts

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by tux99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?



Edited by theYinYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by tux99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...