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
>
>

---

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

---

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?

---

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
>
>

---

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?

---

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?

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

> to Lunux Linux v2.0)

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

> / root filesystem for system maintenance mode)

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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
>

---

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...

---

quote:

---

> How to ask questions on Usenet :

---

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.
>

---

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

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.
>

---

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.
>

---

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

---

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

---

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.
>

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

>
>
> Good point.
>
>
>
>
> 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).
>
>
>
> 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

---

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?
>

---

quote:

---

> Lamar Thomas wrote:
>
are[QUOTE][color=darkred]
to[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
>
> 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 ?
>
>

---

quote:

---

> "Martin Slaney" <slazNIET_SPAM@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:3FC32A6E.6020603@dsl.pipex.com...
>
>
> are
>
>
> to
>
>
>
> Point well taken!

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

>
>
> You know you could of just hit the search button, and THEN copy pated
> the url (as you did it seems from your last line contain the search
> stats.) From there one could easily click "advanced search" at the top
> and see what was entered.

---

quote:

---

>
> Hmmm, true, but my method is to teach how to fish, not feed them the
> fish. :-)
>
> The other problem is your suggestion creates a line that is 124
> characters long which can cause some people problems.
>

---

quote:

---

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:54:31 GMT
> Bit Twister <BitTwister@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>
> I think he meant use this format:
>
> best partition layout group:*linux*
>
> which you can copy from the search box after you entered it your way
> and clicked search. That just shows how you can enter it all in the
> main search box without having to go to "advanced". Both ways work
> just fine . . . :-)

---

quote:

---

> 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.

---

quote:

---

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:05:20 GMT, mao <mao@mail.it> wrote:
>
>
> A security issue that was recently raised on the BUGTRAQ mailing list
> is relevant here.
>
> If you allow other people to have accounts on your system, you need to
> have /home as a seperate partition, and to make sure it is mounted
> with
> the 'nosuid' flag, to ensure they can't import suid programs from
> other systems and bcore root on yours.
>
> Another, related, issue is that they can create links (with 'ln') to
> other peoples files. This won't let them read the files, but it stops
> the owner deleting them, and it may cause the owner to run out of
> quota.

---

quote:

---

> 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.

---

quote:

---

> |> 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
>
> /var contains /var/spool/mail and you might be upset if your mail got
> lost due to a power glitch at the wrong time.

---

quote:

---

>
> |> benefits of journaling and for performance reasons it might
> |> be better to just use ext2.
> |
> |If the volume isn't changing, is there a penalty for using ext3? I'm
> |relatively new the Linux world and I don't know the answer.
>
> I don't know the answer right off but the presumption that journalling
> adds overhead or that the overhead is significant should be questioned.

---

quote:

---

> It may in fact make things more efficient because the journal may group
> write activity. There have been some benchmarks and a google should find
> them.

---

quote:

---

>
>Add another cheap drive.

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Yep. Nothing like waiting for a lifetime while watching that dopey
flashlight as it slowly scans a 200G C partition so you can find a file to
open. Nothing like having to do something from the command line and
burrowing down seven or eight directories with squigglies and half named
files. The reason you use partitions is the same reason you have different
rooms in your house, or why a file cabinet has more than one drawer. A
giant C partition is stupid M$ think.

No secretary could survive with a one drawer file cabinet, wherein resides
a folder, inside a folder, inside a folder, with yet another folder inside
there. Multiple drawers, single folders inside.
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>I *ALWAYS* use partitions in Windows - c: for the operating system and d:
>for everything else. And I would STILL do it on a 120Mb disk with XP.
>Why?

---

quote:

---

>
>
> Yep. Nothing like waiting for a lifetime while watching that dopey
> flashlight as it slowly scans a 200G C partition so you can find a file to
> open. Nothing like having to do something from the command line and
> burrowing down seven or eight directories with squigglies and half named
> files. The reason you use partitions is the same reason you have different
> rooms in your house, or why a file cabinet has more than one drawer. A
> giant C partition is stupid M$ think.
>
> No secretary could survive with a one drawer file cabinet, wherein resides
> a folder, inside a folder, inside a folder, with yet another folder inside
> there. Multiple drawers, single folders inside.
>
>
>
>
> No need to explain. Anyone who uses windwoes should understand, and
> anyone who uses a giant C partition for everything gets what they deserve
> when it throws up.
>
> John

---