Red Hat Configuration - Why partition a Lunux system?

Author

Why partition a Lunux system?

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
/opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?

Thanks,

Lamar

mao

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar
>
>

"Linux Partition HOWTO" is your friend.
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Partition/

mao

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar
>
>

"Linux Partition HOWTO" is your friend.
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Partition/

anc

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar

The immediate advantage is if all data is contained in one large partition,
and that partition get damaged, i.e. power failure whilst using your
computer all the data in that partition may not be recoverable.
If you have separate / and /home and /boot partitions and power failure or
hard drive damage occurs, it may be that only one partition is affected.

Another advantage to partitioning is that you can try out different
operating systems, I do not hold the record here, but I have SuSe 8.2,
Mandrake, Slackware and Red Hat and a small windows partition all on a 30G
hard drive. Each linux system has its own / and /home partitions and I use
a common /boot and /swap partition for all systems with a common /share
partition for easy distribution of files.

anc

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar

anc

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar

Bit Twister

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?

Just depends on your backup media, and usage requirements.

http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
best partition layout in the first box
*linux* in the Newsgroup, pick English

Results 1 - 10 of about 827. Search took 1.31 seconds.

Bit Twister

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?

Bit Twister

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?

H. S.

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar
>
>

I am not a Linux adm expert at all. Now that we have that out of the way ...

A little while ago I was trying to find information about the same
thing. Why not just have ONE huge partition and put everything in it?
Couple of the reasons that I found out were: security and organization.
For example, it is better to have a /var partition which comes in handy
if, in some malicious or unintended way, /var begins to fill up (maybe
with logs). It would not be nice to just let it take as much space as it
wants, so a partition helps. Also, using separate partitions makes the
system organized. Maybe here opinion counts, but I certainly like neatly
divided partitions for various directories even though I have 120G HD.

I am sure experts and more knowledgeable people here will be able to
give you more information.

->HS

--
(Remove all underscores from my email address to get the correct one.
Apologies for the inconvenience, but this is to reduce spam.)

H. S.

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar
>
>

H. S.

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar
>
>

mjt

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, "Lamar Thomas" <na@na.net> wrote:

quote:

> n this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?

.... easier backups; if a partition goes wacko, eveything else
should survive.

but let's think about what you said. even with huge Unix
systems, with much more storage and fault tolerance, are still
partitioned with traditional Unix [partitioning] schemes.
..
--
/// Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, skydiver, \\\
\\\ and author: "Inside Linux", "C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" ///
Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill.

mjt

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, "Lamar Thomas" <na@na.net> wrote:

quote:

> n this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?

mjt

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, "Lamar Thomas" <na@na.net> wrote:

quote:

> n this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?

Lew Pitcher

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, "Lamar Thomas" <na@na.net> wrote:

quote:

>In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
>more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
>/opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap?

Well, there goes your thesis. / and swap would be _two_ partitions, and you ask
"why should anyone partition the drive into more then one partition?"

quote:

> It seems like it's
>just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?

Many reasons:

- intellegent use of disk space
(reserving space for future expansion)

- optimization of disk access resources
(placing heavily used disk resources closer to optimum seek point)

- restriction on the size of certain filesystems
(don't let /temp or /var/spool/lpd or /var/spool/news or /home grow
beyond certain acceptable sizes)

- facilitate backup and recovery
(permit volume backup rather than having to backup an entire file tree)

- facilitate upgrades (don't loose /home when you upgrade from Lunux Linux v1.0
to Lunux Linux v2.0)

- restrict access to certain filesystems (/boot not mounted when not needed)

- providing alternate (or recovery) filesystems
(archive /boot to offline filesystem in case of failures, or provide alternate
/ root filesystem for system maintenance mode)

--
Lew Pitcher
IT Consultant, Enterprise Technology Solutions
Toronto Dominion Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed are my own, not my employers')

Lew Pitcher

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, "Lamar Thomas" <na@na.net> wrote:

quote:

>In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
>more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
>/opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap?

Well, there goes your thesis. / and swap would be _two_ partitions, and you ask
"why should anyone partition the drive into more then one partition?"

quote:

> It seems like it's
>just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?

Lew Pitcher

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, "Lamar Thomas" <na@na.net> wrote:

quote:

>In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
>more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
>/opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap?

Well, there goes your thesis. / and swap would be _two_ partitions, and you ask
"why should anyone partition the drive into more then one partition?"

quote:

> It seems like it's
>just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Let us learn from your wisdom, please expound.

Lamar

"mjt" <mjtobler@removethis_consultant.com> wrote in message
news:bRtwb.18385$Rk5.2522@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

quote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, "Lamar Thomas" <na@na.net> wrote:
>
/etc,[QUOTE][color=darkred]
it's[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> ... easier backups; if a partition goes wacko, eveything else
> should survive.
>
> but let's think about what you said. even with huge Unix
> systems, with much more storage and fault tolerance, are still
> partitioned with traditional Unix [partitioning] schemes.
> .
> --
> /// Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, skydiver, \\\
> \\\ and author: "Inside Linux", "C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" ///
> Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill.

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Let us learn from your wisdom, please expound.

Lamar

"mjt" <mjtobler@removethis_consultant.com> wrote in message
news:bRtwb.18385$Rk5.2522@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

quote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, "Lamar Thomas" <na@na.net> wrote:
>
/etc,[QUOTE][color=darkred]
it's[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> ... easier backups; if a partition goes wacko, eveything else
> should survive.
>
> but let's think about what you said. even with huge Unix
> systems, with much more storage and fault tolerance, are still
> partitioned with traditional Unix [partitioning] schemes.
> .
> --
> /// Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, skydiver, \\\
> \\\ and author: "Inside Linux", "C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" ///
> Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill.

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Let us learn from your wisdom, please expound.

Lamar

"mjt" <mjtobler@removethis_consultant.com> wrote in message
news:bRtwb.18385$Rk5.2522@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

quote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, "Lamar Thomas" <na@na.net> wrote:
>
/etc,[QUOTE][color=darkred]
it's[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> ... easier backups; if a partition goes wacko, eveything else
> should survive.
>
> but let's think about what you said. even with huge Unix
> systems, with much more storage and fault tolerance, are still
> partitioned with traditional Unix [partitioning] schemes.
> .
> --
> /// Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, skydiver, \\\
> \\\ and author: "Inside Linux", "C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" ///
> Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill.

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

"Lew Pitcher" <Lew.Pitcher@td.com> wrote in message
news:3fc26732.28191148@news21.on.aibn.com...

quote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, "Lamar Thomas" <na@na.net> wrote:
>
>
> Well, there goes your thesis. / and swap would be _two_ partitions, and

you ask

quote:

> "why should anyone partition the drive into more then one partition?"
>
>
> Many reasons:
>
> - intellegent use of disk space
> (reserving space for future expansion)

Add another cheap drive.

quote:

>
> - optimization of disk access resources
> (placing heavily used disk resources closer to optimum seek point)

Good point.

quote:

>
> - restriction on the size of certain filesystems
> (don't let /temp or /var/spool/lpd or /var/spool/news or /home grow
> beyond certain acceptable sizes)

Again, add another cheap drive or delete some data (which you would have to
do anyway, right?)

quote:

>
> - facilitate backup and recovery
> (permit volume backup rather than having to backup an entire file tree)

Good point. But can you just backup (say) the /home directory even if there
is just "one" (+ swap) partition? (I ask because I don't know, not trying
to be smart).

quote:

>
> - facilitate upgrades (don't loose /home when you upgrade from Lunux Linux

v1.0

quote:

> to Lunux Linux v2.0)

Good point. Will you lose all of your data/config files in /home and /etc
when you upgrade with a one (+ swap) partitioned system?

quote:

>
> - restrict access to certain filesystems (/boot not mounted when not

needed)

Again, good point.

quote:

>
> - providing alternate (or recovery) filesystems
> (archive /boot to offline filesystem in case of failures, or provide

alternate

quote:

> / root filesystem for system maintenance mode)

Again, good point.

So if you need some of the thing above it might be a good idea to have more
then one partition.

Lamar

quote:

>
>
> --
> Lew Pitcher
> IT Consultant, Enterprise Technology Solutions
> Toronto Dominion Bank Financial Group
>
> (Opinions expressed are my own, not my employers')

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

"Lew Pitcher" <Lew.Pitcher@td.com> wrote in message
news:3fc26732.28191148@news21.on.aibn.com...

quote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, "Lamar Thomas" <na@na.net> wrote:
>
>
> Well, there goes your thesis. / and swap would be _two_ partitions, and

you ask

quote:

> "why should anyone partition the drive into more then one partition?"
>
>
> Many reasons:
>
> - intellegent use of disk space
> (reserving space for future expansion)

Add another cheap drive.

quote:

>
> - optimization of disk access resources
> (placing heavily used disk resources closer to optimum seek point)

Good point.

quote:

>
> - restriction on the size of certain filesystems
> (don't let /temp or /var/spool/lpd or /var/spool/news or /home grow
> beyond certain acceptable sizes)

Again, add another cheap drive or delete some data (which you would have to
do anyway, right?)

quote:

>
> - facilitate backup and recovery
> (permit volume backup rather than having to backup an entire file tree)

Good point. But can you just backup (say) the /home directory even if there
is just "one" (+ swap) partition? (I ask because I don't know, not trying
to be smart).

quote:

>
> - facilitate upgrades (don't loose /home when you upgrade from Lunux Linux

v1.0

quote:

> to Lunux Linux v2.0)

Good point. Will you lose all of your data/config files in /home and /etc
when you upgrade with a one (+ swap) partitioned system?

quote:

>
> - restrict access to certain filesystems (/boot not mounted when not

needed)

Again, good point.

quote:

>
> - providing alternate (or recovery) filesystems
> (archive /boot to offline filesystem in case of failures, or provide

alternate

quote:

> / root filesystem for system maintenance mode)

Again, good point.

So if you need some of the thing above it might be a good idea to have more
then one partition.

Lamar

quote:

>
>
> --
> Lew Pitcher
> IT Consultant, Enterprise Technology Solutions
> Toronto Dominion Bank Financial Group
>
> (Opinions expressed are my own, not my employers')

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

"Lew Pitcher" <Lew.Pitcher@td.com> wrote in message
news:3fc26732.28191148@news21.on.aibn.com...

quote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 GMT, "Lamar Thomas" <na@na.net> wrote:
>
>
> Well, there goes your thesis. / and swap would be _two_ partitions, and

you ask

quote:

> "why should anyone partition the drive into more then one partition?"
>
>
> Many reasons:
>
> - intellegent use of disk space
> (reserving space for future expansion)

Add another cheap drive.

quote:

>
> - optimization of disk access resources
> (placing heavily used disk resources closer to optimum seek point)

Good point.

quote:

>
> - restriction on the size of certain filesystems
> (don't let /temp or /var/spool/lpd or /var/spool/news or /home grow
> beyond certain acceptable sizes)

Again, add another cheap drive or delete some data (which you would have to
do anyway, right?)

quote:

>
> - facilitate backup and recovery
> (permit volume backup rather than having to backup an entire file tree)

Good point. But can you just backup (say) the /home directory even if there
is just "one" (+ swap) partition? (I ask because I don't know, not trying
to be smart).

quote:

>
> - facilitate upgrades (don't loose /home when you upgrade from Lunux Linux

v1.0

quote:

> to Lunux Linux v2.0)

Good point. Will you lose all of your data/config files in /home and /etc
when you upgrade with a one (+ swap) partitioned system?

quote:

>
> - restrict access to certain filesystems (/boot not mounted when not

needed)

Again, good point.

quote:

>
> - providing alternate (or recovery) filesystems
> (archive /boot to offline filesystem in case of failures, or provide

alternate

quote:

> / root filesystem for system maintenance mode)

Again, good point.

So if you need some of the thing above it might be a good idea to have more
then one partition.

Lamar

quote:

>
>
> --
> Lew Pitcher
> IT Consultant, Enterprise Technology Solutions
> Toronto Dominion Bank Financial Group
>
> (Opinions expressed are my own, not my employers')

Joseph

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 +0000, Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar

To simplify things so you might be able to understand:

The same reason that in DOS you might choose to use different drives (i,e.
C:, D:, E: ) like one for business files, another for all your MP3's,
another for all your pirated movies, etc...

--
-Joseph-
PLONK and get PLONKED to rid yourself of those who just want to whine.
The Absolute Beginner's Guide to Usenet: http://tinyurl.com/vdg2
The nOObs Best Friend: http://tinyurl.com/7t3w

Joseph

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 +0000, Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar

Joseph

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 +0000, Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

"Joseph" <1on1(removethis)@email.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.24.22.18.44.784844@email.com...

quote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 +0000, Lamar Thomas wrote:
>
/etc,[QUOTE][color=darkred]
it's[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> To simplify things so you might be able to understand:
>
> The same reason that in DOS you might choose to use different drives (i,e.
> C:, D:, E: ) like one for business files, another for all your MP3's,
> another for all your pirated movies, etc...
>
> --
> -Joseph-
> PLONK and get PLONKED to rid yourself of those who just want to whine.
> The Absolute Beginner's Guide to Usenet: http://tinyurl.com/vdg2
> The nOObs Best Friend: http://tinyurl.com/7t3w
>

You don't need partitions for that. That's what "folders" are for. The
*real* reason you used partitions in DOS and Windows (pre 95b) was because
DOS/Windows couldn't see large disk. Now Windows can. For the most part,
the only people still using more then one partition on a Windows system are
the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not *many* good reasons to
do that any more. I just wanted to know if that's what's happening in the
Linux world too.

Lamar

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

"Joseph" <1on1(removethis)@email.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.24.22.18.44.784844@email.com...

quote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 +0000, Lamar Thomas wrote:
>
/etc,[QUOTE][color=darkred]
it's[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> To simplify things so you might be able to understand:
>
> The same reason that in DOS you might choose to use different drives (i,e.
> C:, D:, E: ) like one for business files, another for all your MP3's,
> another for all your pirated movies, etc...
>
> --
> -Joseph-
> PLONK and get PLONKED to rid yourself of those who just want to whine.
> The Absolute Beginner's Guide to Usenet: http://tinyurl.com/vdg2
> The nOObs Best Friend: http://tinyurl.com/7t3w
>

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

"Joseph" <1on1(removethis)@email.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.24.22.18.44.784844@email.com...

quote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:57:52 +0000, Lamar Thomas wrote:
>
/etc,[QUOTE][color=darkred]
it's[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> To simplify things so you might be able to understand:
>
> The same reason that in DOS you might choose to use different drives (i,e.
> C:, D:, E: ) like one for business files, another for all your MP3's,
> another for all your pirated movies, etc...
>
> --
> -Joseph-
> PLONK and get PLONKED to rid yourself of those who just want to whine.
> The Absolute Beginner's Guide to Usenet: http://tinyurl.com/vdg2
> The nOObs Best Friend: http://tinyurl.com/7t3w
>

houghi

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Joseph wrote:

quote:

> The same reason that in DOS you might choose to use different drives (i,e.
> C:, D:, E: ) like one for business files, another for all your MP3's,
> another for all your pirated movies, etc...

Yeah, I never understood that either.

c:\\mp3
c:\\pics

or
c:
d:

Same difference to me.

Under Linux it makes even less sense:
/mp3
/pics

or

/mp3
/pics

:-)

--
houghi

quote:

> How to ask questions on Usenet :

http://www.houghi.org/question
Take a look and pass the word.

houghi

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Joseph wrote:

quote:

> The same reason that in DOS you might choose to use different drives (i,e.
> C:, D:, E: ) like one for business files, another for all your MP3's,
> another for all your pirated movies, etc...

Yeah, I never understood that either.

c:\\mp3
c:\\pics

or
c:
d:

Same difference to me.

Under Linux it makes even less sense:
/mp3
/pics

or

/mp3
/pics

:-)

--
houghi

quote:

> How to ask questions on Usenet :

http://www.houghi.org/question
Take a look and pass the word.

houghi

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Joseph wrote:

quote:

> The same reason that in DOS you might choose to use different drives (i,e.
> C:, D:, E: ) like one for business files, another for all your MP3's,
> another for all your pirated movies, etc...

Yeah, I never understood that either.

c:\\mp3
c:\\pics

or
c:
d:

Same difference to me.

Under Linux it makes even less sense:
/mp3
/pics

or

/mp3
/pics

:-)

--
houghi

quote:

> How to ask questions on Usenet :

http://www.houghi.org/question
Take a look and pass the word.

baskitcaise

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

>
> You don't need partitions for that. That's what "folders" are for. The
> *real* reason you used partitions in DOS and Windows (pre 95b) was because
> DOS/Windows couldn't see large disk. Now Windows can. For the most part,
> the only people still using more then one partition on a Windows system are
> the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not *many* good reasons to
> do that any more. I just wanted to know if that's what's happening in the
> Linux world too.
>

You are correct you don`t "need" extra partitions, but if you are jumping from
one distro to another or upgrading from one release to another that has major
file system changes as was in earlier versions of Suse ( and other distros )
you could just format the ones that are affected, leaving the /home partition
thus saving all your config files, d/loaded stuff and personal files for use
on the new system.

I am still using a /home partition that is 4 years old which has gone through
3 different distro`s and 7 versions of Suse, if I had my /home intergrated in
the / partition I would have had to burn to cd as a backup ( and doing that
to 35gigs is no fun ) or add another hardrive which in this machine is
impossible as all IDE is full.

The most elegant solution is different partitions.

I also have M$ programs I run under wine on a seperate partition of 10 gig
which has gone through 4 incarnations of Suse without a reinstall.

HTH

--
Mark
Twixt hill and high water.
N.Wales, UK.
Email is spam trap try baskitcaise at gmx dot co dot uk

baskitcaise

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

>
> You don't need partitions for that. That's what "folders" are for. The
> *real* reason you used partitions in DOS and Windows (pre 95b) was because
> DOS/Windows couldn't see large disk. Now Windows can. For the most part,
> the only people still using more then one partition on a Windows system are
> the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not *many* good reasons to
> do that any more. I just wanted to know if that's what's happening in the
> Linux world too.
>

baskitcaise

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

>
> You don't need partitions for that. That's what "folders" are for. The
> *real* reason you used partitions in DOS and Windows (pre 95b) was because
> DOS/Windows couldn't see large disk. Now Windows can. For the most part,
> the only people still using more then one partition on a Windows system are
> the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not *many* good reasons to
> do that any more. I just wanted to know if that's what's happening in the
> Linux world too.
>

Ivan Marsh

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:40:29 +0000, Lamar Thomas wrote:

<SNIPAGE>

quote:

> You don't need partitions for that. That's what "folders" are for. The
> *real* reason you used partitions in DOS and Windows (pre 95b) was
> because DOS/Windows couldn't see large disk. Now Windows can. For the
> most part, the only people still using more then one partition on a
> Windows system are the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not
> *many* good reasons to do that any more. I just wanted to know if
> that's what's happening in the Linux world too.
>
> Lamar

No, that's not what's happening in the Linux world.

Unlike MS, Linux and every other *nix run on a real filesystem that's
designed to be sectioned up.

The partitions make it easier to manage things and interconnect other
systems over NFS.

So you can do nifty things like have /, /boot and /var local and mount
/usr and /home from another server or easily separate the OS from data.

There is no reason you can't partition your Linux box so it only has swap
and / but it makes it easier to manage in separate partitions.

--
i.m.
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.

Ivan Marsh

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:40:29 +0000, Lamar Thomas wrote:

<SNIPAGE>

quote:

> You don't need partitions for that. That's what "folders" are for. The
> *real* reason you used partitions in DOS and Windows (pre 95b) was
> because DOS/Windows couldn't see large disk. Now Windows can. For the
> most part, the only people still using more then one partition on a
> Windows system are the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not
> *many* good reasons to do that any more. I just wanted to know if
> that's what's happening in the Linux world too.
>
> Lamar

Ivan Marsh

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:40:29 +0000, Lamar Thomas wrote:

<SNIPAGE>

quote:

> You don't need partitions for that. That's what "folders" are for. The
> *real* reason you used partitions in DOS and Windows (pre 95b) was
> because DOS/Windows couldn't see large disk. Now Windows can. For the
> most part, the only people still using more then one partition on a
> Windows system are the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not
> *many* good reasons to do that any more. I just wanted to know if
> that's what's happening in the Linux world too.
>
> Lamar

Kevin D. Snodgrass

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

>
>
> Again, add another cheap drive or delete some data (which you would have to
> do anyway, right?)

You have to shutdown to do that. Ruins uptime. :-)

But in a real life situation, a server running out of disk
space on a single partition setup could hose many things
like an SQL server (Postgresl, MySQL, Oracle, DB2, etc..)
and make users mad if their print jobs fail. Sysadmins get
yelled at enough, don't need users whining about that...

Also, if you have /tmp and /var on their own partitions and
something does fill one or both up (printer subsystem goes
wacky, rouge prog spews /tmp with loads of crap) your system
probably will keep running and the offending programs will
fail, not the whole system.

quote:

>
>
> Good point. But can you just backup (say) the /home directory even if there
> is just "one" (+ swap) partition? (I ask because I don't know, not trying
> to be smart).

Different backup strategies, different tools. You can
backup a partition easily with:

mount /dev/hdb1 /mnt/backup
dd if=/dev/hda3 of=/mnt/backup/home.monday
umount /mnt/backup

Or somesuch. Probably not the best example, but you get the
idea.

quote:

>
> v1.0
>
>
>
> Good point. Will you lose all of your data/config files in /home and /etc
> when you upgrade with a one (+ swap) partitioned system?

You *shouldn't* lose /home. /etc may get a bunch of
changes, many of which need to be there (think moving from
kernel 2.4 to 2.6) but you also may want to have your old
config files around so you can adjust the new to fit your needs.

Another advantage is to have multiple distros or versions on
the same box with separate /boot, /etc, /bin, /sbin etc...
but keeping /home, /root, /opt and other
non-distro/non-version dependant directories the same
throughout.

Another reason is to run a journaled filesystem on only the
partitions that *need* it, like one with SQL database files
or maybe /home. No need to have Reiser4 or Ext3 on /bin,
/tmp, /var, etc... /bin doesn't change, except on updates
or upgrades. /tmp, /var, etc... don't really need the
benefits of journaling and for performance reasons it might
be better to just use ext2.

It's also a lot easier to install to a partitioned disk and
never need it that to install to a single partition and find
out later that partitions would be useful.

Kevin D. Snodgrass

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

>
>
> Again, add another cheap drive or delete some data (which you would have to
> do anyway, right?)

quote:

>
>
> Good point. But can you just backup (say) the /home directory even if there
> is just "one" (+ swap) partition? (I ask because I don't know, not trying
> to be smart).

quote:

>
> v1.0
>
>
>
> Good point. Will you lose all of your data/config files in /home and /etc
> when you upgrade with a one (+ swap) partitioned system?

Kevin D. Snodgrass

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

>
>
> Again, add another cheap drive or delete some data (which you would have to
> do anyway, right?)

quote:

>
>
> Good point. But can you just backup (say) the /home directory even if there
> is just "one" (+ swap) partition? (I ask because I don't know, not trying
> to be smart).

quote:

>
> v1.0
>
>
>
> Good point. Will you lose all of your data/config files in /home and /etc
> when you upgrade with a one (+ swap) partitioned system?

Kevin D. Snodgrass

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> You don't need partitions for that. That's what "folders" are for. The
> *real* reason you used partitions in DOS and Windows (pre 95b) was because
> DOS/Windows couldn't see large disk. Now Windows can. For the most part,
> the only people still using more then one partition on a Windows system are
> the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not *many* good reasons to
> do that any more. I just wanted to know if that's what's happening in the
> Linux world too.

Disclaimer: I have no experience with Windows since Win98/ME.

MS has, since DOS 2.1 (I think) days used the concept of
"clusters". *nix sort of does this, calling them blocks.
With the older MS versions the max cluster size was 64
sectors/cluster, which is 32KBs. MS had a max number of
clusters it could address, used to be 64K, which is why
older MS operating systems had a max partition size of 2MB.
I know newer versions have a higher limit, including
Win98/ME, just don't know what that limit is.

With a cluster size of 32KB, on average, you waste about
16KB for each file. If you use a smaller partition size,
you can (possibly) use a smaller cluster size and not waste
as much space.

As far as I know Linux and other *nixes use a 1KB block
size. But maybe on vary large partition it will use a
larger block size.

If you have a system where there will be many small files, a
small block size is better. Large files (video, audio, SQL)
will actually show performance gains with a larger block size.

It really depends on what you are going to do with your system.

Kevin D. Snodgrass

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> You don't need partitions for that. That's what "folders" are for. The
> *real* reason you used partitions in DOS and Windows (pre 95b) was because
> DOS/Windows couldn't see large disk. Now Windows can. For the most part,
> the only people still using more then one partition on a Windows system are
> the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not *many* good reasons to
> do that any more. I just wanted to know if that's what's happening in the
> Linux world too.

Kevin D. Snodgrass

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> You don't need partitions for that. That's what "folders" are for. The
> *real* reason you used partitions in DOS and Windows (pre 95b) was because
> DOS/Windows couldn't see large disk. Now Windows can. For the most part,
> the only people still using more then one partition on a Windows system are
> the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not *many* good reasons to
> do that any more. I just wanted to know if that's what's happening in the
> Linux world too.

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

"Kevin D. Snodgrass" <kdsnodgrass@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3FC29C5B.1080802@yahoo.com...

quote:

> Lamar Thomas wrote:
to[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> You have to shutdown to do that. Ruins uptime. :-)
>
> But in a real life situation, a server running out of disk
> space on a single partition setup could hose many things
> like an SQL server (Postgresl, MySQL, Oracle, DB2, etc..)
> and make users mad if their print jobs fail. Sysadmins get
> yelled at enough, don't need users whining about that...
>
> Also, if you have /tmp and /var on their own partitions and
> something does fill one or both up (printer subsystem goes
> wacky, rouge prog spews /tmp with loads of crap) your system
> probably will keep running and the offending programs will
> fail, not the whole system.
>
tree)[QUOTE][color=darkred]
there[QUOTE][color=darkred]
trying[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> Different backup strategies, different tools. You can
> backup a partition easily with:
>
> mount /dev/hdb1 /mnt/backup
> dd if=/dev/hda3 of=/mnt/backup/home.monday
> umount /mnt/backup
>
> Or somesuch. Probably not the best example, but you get the
> idea.
>
Linux[QUOTE][color=darkred]
/etc[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> You *shouldn't* lose /home. /etc may get a bunch of
> changes, many of which need to be there (think moving from
> kernel 2.4 to 2.6) but you also may want to have your old
> config files around so you can adjust the new to fit your needs.
>
> Another advantage is to have multiple distros or versions on
> the same box with separate /boot, /etc, /bin, /sbin etc...
> but keeping /home, /root, /opt and other
> non-distro/non-version dependant directories the same
> throughout.
>
>
> Another reason is to run a journaled filesystem on only the
> partitions that *need* it, like one with SQL database files
> or maybe /home. No need to have Reiser4 or Ext3 on /bin,
> /tmp, /var, etc... /bin doesn't change, except on updates
> or upgrades. /tmp, /var, etc... don't really need the
> benefits of journaling and for performance reasons it might
> be better to just use ext2.
>
> It's also a lot easier to install to a partitioned disk and
> never need it that to install to a single partition and find
> out later that partitions would be useful.
>

All very good points! Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me.

Lamar

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

"Kevin D. Snodgrass" <kdsnodgrass@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3FC29C5B.1080802@yahoo.com...

quote:

> Lamar Thomas wrote:
to[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> You have to shutdown to do that. Ruins uptime. :-)
>
> But in a real life situation, a server running out of disk
> space on a single partition setup could hose many things
> like an SQL server (Postgresl, MySQL, Oracle, DB2, etc..)
> and make users mad if their print jobs fail. Sysadmins get
> yelled at enough, don't need users whining about that...
>
> Also, if you have /tmp and /var on their own partitions and
> something does fill one or both up (printer subsystem goes
> wacky, rouge prog spews /tmp with loads of crap) your system
> probably will keep running and the offending programs will
> fail, not the whole system.
>
tree)[QUOTE][color=darkred]
there[QUOTE][color=darkred]
trying[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> Different backup strategies, different tools. You can
> backup a partition easily with:
>
> mount /dev/hdb1 /mnt/backup
> dd if=/dev/hda3 of=/mnt/backup/home.monday
> umount /mnt/backup
>
> Or somesuch. Probably not the best example, but you get the
> idea.
>
Linux[QUOTE][color=darkred]
/etc[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> You *shouldn't* lose /home. /etc may get a bunch of
> changes, many of which need to be there (think moving from
> kernel 2.4 to 2.6) but you also may want to have your old
> config files around so you can adjust the new to fit your needs.
>
> Another advantage is to have multiple distros or versions on
> the same box with separate /boot, /etc, /bin, /sbin etc...
> but keeping /home, /root, /opt and other
> non-distro/non-version dependant directories the same
> throughout.
>
>
> Another reason is to run a journaled filesystem on only the
> partitions that *need* it, like one with SQL database files
> or maybe /home. No need to have Reiser4 or Ext3 on /bin,
> /tmp, /var, etc... /bin doesn't change, except on updates
> or upgrades. /tmp, /var, etc... don't really need the
> benefits of journaling and for performance reasons it might
> be better to just use ext2.
>
> It's also a lot easier to install to a partitioned disk and
> never need it that to install to a single partition and find
> out later that partitions would be useful.
>

All very good points! Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me.

Lamar

Lamar Thomas

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

"Kevin D. Snodgrass" <kdsnodgrass@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3FC29C5B.1080802@yahoo.com...

quote:

> Lamar Thomas wrote:
to[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> You have to shutdown to do that. Ruins uptime. :-)
>
> But in a real life situation, a server running out of disk
> space on a single partition setup could hose many things
> like an SQL server (Postgresl, MySQL, Oracle, DB2, etc..)
> and make users mad if their print jobs fail. Sysadmins get
> yelled at enough, don't need users whining about that...
>
> Also, if you have /tmp and /var on their own partitions and
> something does fill one or both up (printer subsystem goes
> wacky, rouge prog spews /tmp with loads of crap) your system
> probably will keep running and the offending programs will
> fail, not the whole system.
>
tree)[QUOTE][color=darkred]
there[QUOTE][color=darkred]
trying[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> Different backup strategies, different tools. You can
> backup a partition easily with:
>
> mount /dev/hdb1 /mnt/backup
> dd if=/dev/hda3 of=/mnt/backup/home.monday
> umount /mnt/backup
>
> Or somesuch. Probably not the best example, but you get the
> idea.
>
Linux[QUOTE][color=darkred]
/etc[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> You *shouldn't* lose /home. /etc may get a bunch of
> changes, many of which need to be there (think moving from
> kernel 2.4 to 2.6) but you also may want to have your old
> config files around so you can adjust the new to fit your needs.
>
> Another advantage is to have multiple distros or versions on
> the same box with separate /boot, /etc, /bin, /sbin etc...
> but keeping /home, /root, /opt and other
> non-distro/non-version dependant directories the same
> throughout.
>
>
> Another reason is to run a journaled filesystem on only the
> partitions that *need* it, like one with SQL database files
> or maybe /home. No need to have Reiser4 or Ext3 on /bin,
> /tmp, /var, etc... /bin doesn't change, except on updates
> or upgrades. /tmp, /var, etc... don't really need the
> benefits of journaling and for performance reasons it might
> be better to just use ext2.
>
> It's also a lot easier to install to a partitioned disk and
> never need it that to install to a single partition and find
> out later that partitions would be useful.
>

All very good points! Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me.

Lamar

Charles LaCour

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Kevin D. Snodgrass wrote:

quote:

> Lamar Thomas wrote:
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: I have no experience with Windows since Win98/ME.
>
> MS has, since DOS 2.1 (I think) days used the concept of "clusters".
> *nix sort of does this, calling them blocks. With the older MS versions
> the max cluster size was 64 sectors/cluster, which is 32KBs. MS had a
> max number of clusters it could address, used to be 64K, which is why
> older MS operating systems had a max partition size of 2MB. I know
> newer versions have a higher limit, including Win98/ME, just don't know
> what that limit is.
>
> With a cluster size of 32KB, on average, you waste about 16KB for each
> file. If you use a smaller partition size, you can (possibly) use a
> smaller cluster size and not waste as much space.
>
> As far as I know Linux and other *nixes use a 1KB block size. But maybe
> on vary large partition it will use a larger block size.
>
> If you have a system where there will be many small files, a small block
> size is better. Large files (video, audio, SQL) will actually show
> performance gains with a larger block size.
>
>
> It really depends on what you are going to do with your system.
>

Here is my 2 cents on this:

I maintain many types of servers, Linux, Solaris, and yes even Windows,
and I use partitioning in all environments.

For the "Home" user that is not going to be swiching OS's there would be
verry little reason to use multiple partitions. For example on of my
home linux machines that is an R&D box that I rebuild to suit my needs I
usually have a swap and / partition since it is machine that gets
rebuilt all the time. If you are intending the compter to be a server
then there are should be some serious concideration on how you want to
divide up your drive/drives.

In Linux/*nix files systems the wory is not about cluster size like in
MS windows file systems it the number of inodes. The number of inode
entries is fixed when a file system is initalised. The number of inodes
determines the number of files you can have on that file system. If you
have too few inodes then even if you have many gigs of space left you
can not put any more files on it. Inode entries take up space on the
drive so if you have a file system that has only a few large files but
thousands of inodes you are wasting space on inodes that you will never use.

Performance can also be a reason to make multiple partitions. You
should seperate files that require sequential and random access onto
seperate file systems, preferably seperate phisical drives. If you are
trying to gat as much performance out of your system as possable put
your most used portion of your file system on the first partition of the
drive, the access time is less.

Security is something that has already been mentioned but is a major
concideration in a multi user environment.

Charles LaCour

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Kevin D. Snodgrass wrote:

quote:

> Lamar Thomas wrote:
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: I have no experience with Windows since Win98/ME.
>
> MS has, since DOS 2.1 (I think) days used the concept of "clusters".
> *nix sort of does this, calling them blocks. With the older MS versions
> the max cluster size was 64 sectors/cluster, which is 32KBs. MS had a
> max number of clusters it could address, used to be 64K, which is why
> older MS operating systems had a max partition size of 2MB. I know
> newer versions have a higher limit, including Win98/ME, just don't know
> what that limit is.
>
> With a cluster size of 32KB, on average, you waste about 16KB for each
> file. If you use a smaller partition size, you can (possibly) use a
> smaller cluster size and not waste as much space.
>
> As far as I know Linux and other *nixes use a 1KB block size. But maybe
> on vary large partition it will use a larger block size.
>
> If you have a system where there will be many small files, a small block
> size is better. Large files (video, audio, SQL) will actually show
> performance gains with a larger block size.
>
>
> It really depends on what you are going to do with your system.
>

Charles LaCour

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Kevin D. Snodgrass wrote:

quote:

> Lamar Thomas wrote:
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: I have no experience with Windows since Win98/ME.
>
> MS has, since DOS 2.1 (I think) days used the concept of "clusters".
> *nix sort of does this, calling them blocks. With the older MS versions
> the max cluster size was 64 sectors/cluster, which is 32KBs. MS had a
> max number of clusters it could address, used to be 64K, which is why
> older MS operating systems had a max partition size of 2MB. I know
> newer versions have a higher limit, including Win98/ME, just don't know
> what that limit is.
>
> With a cluster size of 32KB, on average, you waste about 16KB for each
> file. If you use a smaller partition size, you can (possibly) use a
> smaller cluster size and not waste as much space.
>
> As far as I know Linux and other *nixes use a 1KB block size. But maybe
> on vary large partition it will use a larger block size.
>
> If you have a system where there will be many small files, a small block
> size is better. Large files (video, audio, SQL) will actually show
> performance gains with a larger block size.
>
>
> It really depends on what you are going to do with your system.
>

mbjj

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar

If you want to upgrade or switch to another flavor of linux you have
option of only formatting 1 partition. This way you don't lose your
data in /usr /home etc. I have a part for / and one for me.

mbjj

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar

If you want to upgrade or switch to another flavor of linux you have
option of only formatting 1 partition. This way you don't lose your
data in /usr /home etc. I have a part for / and one for me.

mbjj

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> In this day of 80+ GB IDE HDs why should anyone partition the drive into
> more then one partition like: (/, /boot/, /usr, /usr/local, /home, /etc,
> /opt)? What is the benefit? Why not just / and swap? It seems like it's
> just a hold over from the days of smaller HDs. Any feedback?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar

If you want to upgrade or switch to another flavor of linux you have
option of only formatting 1 partition. This way you don't lose your
data in /usr /home etc. I have a part for / and one for me.

Clayton Sutton

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

"Charles LaCour" <calacour@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oezwb.3336$ZE1.2775@fed1read04...

quote:

> Kevin D. Snodgrass wrote:
The[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> Here is my 2 cents on this:
>
> I maintain many types of servers, Linux, Solaris, and yes even Windows,
> and I use partitioning in all environments.
>
> For the "Home" user that is not going to be swiching OS's there would be
> verry little reason to use multiple partitions. For example on of my
> home linux machines that is an R&D box that I rebuild to suit my needs I
> usually have a swap and / partition since it is machine that gets
> rebuilt all the time. If you are intending the compter to be a server
> then there are should be some serious concideration on how you want to
> divide up your drive/drives.
>
> In Linux/*nix files systems the wory is not about cluster size like in
> MS windows file systems it the number of inodes. The number of inode
> entries is fixed when a file system is initalised. The number of inodes
> determines the number of files you can have on that file system. If you
> have too few inodes then even if you have many gigs of space left you
> can not put any more files on it. Inode entries take up space on the
> drive so if you have a file system that has only a few large files but
> thousands of inodes you are wasting space on inodes that you will never

use.

quote:

>
> Performance can also be a reason to make multiple partitions. You
> should seperate files that require sequential and random access onto
> seperate file systems, preferably seperate phisical drives. If you are
> trying to gat as much performance out of your system as possable put
> your most used portion of your file system on the first partition of the
> drive, the access time is less.
>
> Security is something that has already been mentioned but is a major
> concideration in a multi user environment.
>

Cool, that's the kind of stuff I wanted to hear!

Lamar

Clayton Sutton

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

"Charles LaCour" <calacour@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oezwb.3336$ZE1.2775@fed1read04...

quote:

> Kevin D. Snodgrass wrote:
The[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> Here is my 2 cents on this:
>
> I maintain many types of servers, Linux, Solaris, and yes even Windows,
> and I use partitioning in all environments.
>
> For the "Home" user that is not going to be swiching OS's there would be
> verry little reason to use multiple partitions. For example on of my
> home linux machines that is an R&D box that I rebuild to suit my needs I
> usually have a swap and / partition since it is machine that gets
> rebuilt all the time. If you are intending the compter to be a server
> then there are should be some serious concideration on how you want to
> divide up your drive/drives.
>
> In Linux/*nix files systems the wory is not about cluster size like in
> MS windows file systems it the number of inodes. The number of inode
> entries is fixed when a file system is initalised. The number of inodes
> determines the number of files you can have on that file system. If you
> have too few inodes then even if you have many gigs of space left you
> can not put any more files on it. Inode entries take up space on the
> drive so if you have a file system that has only a few large files but
> thousands of inodes you are wasting space on inodes that you will never

use.

quote:

>
> Performance can also be a reason to make multiple partitions. You
> should seperate files that require sequential and random access onto
> seperate file systems, preferably seperate phisical drives. If you are
> trying to gat as much performance out of your system as possable put
> your most used portion of your file system on the first partition of the
> drive, the access time is less.
>
> Security is something that has already been mentioned but is a major
> concideration in a multi user environment.
>

Cool, that's the kind of stuff I wanted to hear!

Lamar

Martin Slaney

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> For the most part,
> the only people still using more then one partition on a Windows system are
> the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not *many* good reasons to
> do that any more.

There still are good reasons to have >1 partition on _any_ DOS/windows
machine. When windows gets f***** up/unbootable etc., by far the most
time-efficient way to rectify that is to wipe out windows and re-install
from scratch. The only sure way to do that is to format the partition
onto which windows was installed (nearly always c: ) - but then -
bye-bye user files. OTOH if you have windows+apps on c: and user
files+installers/drivers on d: you can format c: rather more easily,
can't you ? Geddit ?

Clayton Sutton

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

"Charles LaCour" <calacour@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oezwb.3336$ZE1.2775@fed1read04...

quote:

> Kevin D. Snodgrass wrote:
The[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> Here is my 2 cents on this:
>
> I maintain many types of servers, Linux, Solaris, and yes even Windows,
> and I use partitioning in all environments.
>
> For the "Home" user that is not going to be swiching OS's there would be
> verry little reason to use multiple partitions. For example on of my
> home linux machines that is an R&D box that I rebuild to suit my needs I
> usually have a swap and / partition since it is machine that gets
> rebuilt all the time. If you are intending the compter to be a server
> then there are should be some serious concideration on how you want to
> divide up your drive/drives.
>
> In Linux/*nix files systems the wory is not about cluster size like in
> MS windows file systems it the number of inodes. The number of inode
> entries is fixed when a file system is initalised. The number of inodes
> determines the number of files you can have on that file system. If you
> have too few inodes then even if you have many gigs of space left you
> can not put any more files on it. Inode entries take up space on the
> drive so if you have a file system that has only a few large files but
> thousands of inodes you are wasting space on inodes that you will never

use.

quote:

>
> Performance can also be a reason to make multiple partitions. You
> should seperate files that require sequential and random access onto
> seperate file systems, preferably seperate phisical drives. If you are
> trying to gat as much performance out of your system as possable put
> your most used portion of your file system on the first partition of the
> drive, the access time is less.
>
> Security is something that has already been mentioned but is a major
> concideration in a multi user environment.
>

Cool, that's the kind of stuff I wanted to hear!

Lamar

Martin Slaney

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> For the most part,
> the only people still using more then one partition on a Windows system are
> the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not *many* good reasons to
> do that any more.

Martin Slaney

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> For the most part,
> the only people still using more then one partition on a Windows system are
> the hold outs from the old DOS days. There are not *many* good reasons to
> do that any more.

Lew Pitcher

2004-01-23, 7:21 pm

Lamar Thomas wrote:

quote:

> "Lew Pitcher" <Lew.Pitcher@td.com> wrote in message
> news:3fc26732.28191148@news21.on.aibn.com...
>
>
> you ask
>
>
>
> Add another cheap drive.

And what happens when you reach the limits of the number of "cheap drives"
that you can install in your system?

quote:

>
>
> Good point.
>
>
>
>
> Again, add another cheap drive or delete some data (which you would have to
> do anyway, right?)

Same question wrt the # of cheap drives.

In any case, the purpose of putting these directory trees on their own
partitions has nothing to do with maintaining /their/ contents. It has
entirely everything to do with giving /other directory trees/ freespace by
ensuring that these volatile directories do not hog the space available.

/Delete some data/ is exactly the thing you *do not* want to do in a case
like this, because you'll be deleting the wrong data.

quote:

>
>
> Good point. But can you just backup (say) the /home directory even if there
> is just "one" (+ swap) partition? (I ask because I don't know, not trying
> to be smart).
>
>
>
> v1.0
>
>
>
> Good point. Will you lose all of your data/config files in /home and /etc
> when you upgrade with a one (+ swap) partitioned system?
>
>
>
> needed)
>
> Again, good point.
>
>
>
> alternate
>
>
>
> Again, good point.
>
>
> So if you need some of the thing above it might be a good idea to have more
> then one partition.
>
> Lamar