|
Home > Archive > Linux Debian support > July 2007 > New options for a fresh install...
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
New options for a fresh install...
|
|
| Fredderic 2007-07-13, 1:14 am |
| Okay... So I'm thinking of changing architectures from i686 to amd64.
What I'm wondering, is what else I should change.
Presently, I'm running Debian/Sid with an ext3 file system. I'll have
1GB of RAM, and a pair of 80GB hard drives, and I do occasionally use
Windoze (the new machine comes with Vista) for a few games.
My old little brain has been quite happy these past four or five years
with my old little computer having its old little partitions and its
(not quite so) old little ext3... So I'm asking for help again,
with figuring out where to go from here... 
More specifically, then, what I'm wondering is whether I should change
partition types, whether reiser4 is better (and safe) to use, or
whether there's something newer that's more suitable, little bits and
pieces like that that are really helpful todecide on at install time.
All in all, I've been rather out of the loop on the more recent file
system developments, also. I've watched and listened, and have a basic
understanding of what's going on, but all this LVM and RAID has kind of
passed me by in any practical sense, and while stuff I've found in
google and read in articles is full of specifics, it's lacking in any
real feel for the pros and cons. (Much like with 64 vs 32, google will
tell me it's possible, and google will tell it there have been
problems, but google isn't very good at telling me if it's right for me)
So thanks, I'm not the only one facing these questions, as most
processors available seem to be heading into multi-core, and drives are
getting bigger and bigger, and what-not.
Fredderic
| |
| sk8r-365 2007-07-13, 1:14 am |
| Government satellites recorded Fredderic saying:
<snip>
>
> More specifically, then, what I'm wondering is whether I should change
> partition types, whether reiser4 is better (and safe) to use, or
> whether there's something newer that's more suitable, little bits and
> pieces like that that are really helpful todecide on at install time.
<snip>
Here's how the Debian folks put the reiserfs question - I thought it
good advise:
[quote]
Securing Debian Manual
Chapter 3 - Before and during the installation
3.2.1.1 Selecting the appropriate file systems
During the system partitioning you also have to decide which file system
you want to use. The default file system selected in the Debian installation
for Linux partitions is ext2. However, it is recommended you switch to a
journalling file system, such as ext3, reiserfs, jfs or xfs, to minimize
the problems derived from a system crash in the following cases:
* for laptops in all the file systems installed. That way if you run
out of battery unexpectedly or the system freezes due to a hardware
issue (such as X configuration which is somewhat common) you will be
less likely to lose data during a hardware reboot.
* for production systems which store large amounts of data (like mail
servers, ftp servers, network file systems...) it is recommended on
these partitions. That way, in the event of a system crash, the server
will take less time to recover and check the file systems, and data
loss will be less likely.
Leaving aside the performance issues regarding journalling file systems
(since this can sometimes turn into a religious war), it is usually better
to use the ext3 file system. The reason for this is that it is backwards
compatible with ext2, so if there are any issues with the journalling you
can disable it and still have a working file system. Also, if you need to
recover the system with a bootdisk (or CD-ROM) you do not need a custom
kernel. If the kernel is 2.4 or 2.6 ext3 support is already available, if
it is a 2.2 kernel you will be able to boot the file system even if you
lose journalling capabilities. If you are using other journalling file
systems you will find that you might not be able to recover unless you
have a 2.4 or 2.6 kernel with the needed modules built-in. If you are
stuck with a 2.2 kernel on the rescue disk, it might be even more
difficult to have it access reiserfs or xfs.
[/quote]
--
sk8r-365
http://goodbye-microsoft.com/
| |
| Anton Ertl 2007-07-13, 7:14 am |
| Fredderic <put_my_name_here@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>Okay... So I'm thinking of changing architectures from i686 to amd64.
>What I'm wondering, is what else I should change.
>
>Presently, I'm running Debian/Sid with an ext3 file system. I'll have
>1GB of RAM, and a pair of 80GB hard drives, and I do occasionally use
>Windoze (the new machine comes with Vista) for a few games.
>
>My old little brain has been quite happy these past four or five years
>with my old little computer having its old little partitions and its
>(not quite so) old little ext3... So I'm asking for help again,
>with figuring out where to go from here...
>
>More specifically, then, what I'm wondering is whether I should change
>partition types, whether reiser4 is better (and safe) to use,
If you are happy with Ext3, stay with it (unless you want to explore
new territory).
>I've watched and listened, and have a basic
>understanding of what's going on, but all this LVM and RAID
With your hardware, you might consider putting the valuable data in a
RAID1 (mirroring between partitions on different disks). This costs
disk space, however.
The way you do it is not very straightforward in the Debian installer.
From memory: You create the partitions, make them into Raid
partitions, then select creating a RAID, and select which of the RAID
partitions go into which md (RAID) device, then select which md device
is formatted with which file system.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
| |
| Rodney 2007-07-13, 7:14 am |
| On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:47:40 +1000, Fredderic wrote:
> Okay... So I'm thinking of changing architectures from i686 to amd64.
> What I'm wondering, is what else I should change.
>
> Presently, I'm running Debian/Sid with an ext3 file system. I'll have 1GB
> of RAM, and a pair of 80GB hard drives, and I do occasionally use Windoze
> (the new machine comes with Vista) for a few games.
>
> My old little brain has been quite happy these past four or five years
> with my old little computer having its old little partitions and its (not
> quite so) old little ext3... So I'm asking for help again, with figuring
> out where to go from here...
>
> More specifically, then, what I'm wondering is whether I should change
> partition types, whether reiser4 is better (and safe) to use, or whether
> there's something newer that's more suitable, little bits and pieces like
> that that are really helpful todecide on at install time.
>
> All in all, I've been rather out of the loop on the more recent file
> system developments, also. I've watched and listened, and have a basic
> understanding of what's going on, but all this LVM and RAID has kind of
> passed me by in any practical sense, and while stuff I've found in google
> and read in articles is full of specifics, it's lacking in any real feel
> for the pros and cons. (Much like with 64 vs 32, google will tell me it's
> possible, and google will tell it there have been problems, but google
> isn't very good at telling me if it's right for me)
>
> So thanks, I'm not the only one facing these questions, as most processors
> available seem to be heading into multi-core, and drives are getting
> bigger and bigger, and what-not.
>
>
> Fredderic
And, along with Google, people here will not be very good at telling you
what's right for *you*. At least, not unless you give a lot more
information and even then one would have to guess some about your personal
style, there's always more than one way to do things and what works for
some may not be the most comfortable way for others. I wonder what an old
little computer, with a hard drive having its old little partitions,
translates into and what it is used for.
Since you're using sid, I'm a bit surprised at your questions. However an
extremely brief answer might be. LVM could make those two 80G act like one
160G; RAID could help protect the intregity of your data. Either
*might* be useful to you or neither might be very useful. You're already
using a journalling fs and I think that is a good idea. Another question
comes to mind, how do you backup?
One caution about reiser, the author has been charged with murder and that
could possibly influence further development. I admit, I have reiserfs on
the system I'm currently typing from.
I agree with sk8r-365, much about this whole subject could turn into
a religious war.
Rodney
| |
| AJackson 2007-07-20, 7:14 pm |
| On Jul 13, 12:22 pm, Rodney <m...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:47:40 +1000, Fredderic wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And, along with Google, people here will not be very good at telling you
> what's right for *you*. At least, not unless you give a lot more
> information and even then one would have to guess some about your personal
> style, there's always more than one way to do things and what works for
> some may not be the most comfortable way for others. I wonder what an old
> little computer, with a hard drive having its old little partitions,
> translates into and what it is used for.
>
> Since you're using sid, I'm a bit surprised at your questions. However an
> extremely brief answer might be. LVM could make those two 80G act like one
> 160G; RAID could help protect the intregity of your data. Either
> *might* be useful to you or neither might be very useful. You're already
> using a journalling fs and I think that is a good idea. Another question
> comes to mind, how do you backup?
This question, about backup i s more important than if you use RAID or
not. RAID has two use. Make your disk operation faster and/or
redundant store. Last make a faild disk drive not as big problem.
BUT it will never save you from needing to do backup. RAID doesn't
undo an "rm -rf /home" as root. A good backup routine can do that.
LVM can be used to resize your partitions after you have installed you
system. This is a very sexy feature. You can not do same with RAID.
To use this feature your file systems on those "virtual partitions"
need to support resizing. And pref. on a live system too. This is a
difference between file systems. And if you don't have special needs
(like using a file system on a USB-memory where writes should be low),
you really should select a journaling file system.
There there is different strong and weak sides on each file system.
ext3 is easy, but basicly not good in anything (it's not worst
either). xsf is best on handling large files. Where ext3 takes
seconds to remove large files, xfs does that in a blink. But it not
the best when you lose power. Many of those file systems can grow in
a live system, some can shrink on live systems.
This Wiki has lots of information, but not that cleanly organized, as
Wikis tend to be http://wiki.debian.org/
There was some tests at http://www.debian-administration.org/
| |
| Fredderic 2007-07-21, 1:12 pm |
| On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:22:10 -0700,
Rodney <me@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:47:40 +1000, Fredderic wrote:
> And, along with Google, people here will not be very good at telling
> you what's right for *you*.
Actually, sometimes it takes a combination of the two. My forays into
Google to answer these questions, resulted in little more than
information overload. Prior to these responses, I couldn't make my
mind up one way or another, but the responses I've had in this
newsgroup have allowed me to prune the tree of knowledge back a bit,
you could say...
> Since you're using sid, I'm a bit surprised at your questions.
> However an extremely brief answer might be. LVM could make those two
> 80G act like one 160G; RAID could help protect the intregity of your
> data. Either *might* be useful to you or neither might be very
> useful. You're already using a journalling fs and I think that is a
> good idea.
My last system upgrade was about '04-ish, and that involved mostly
sticking my old hard drive into the new box, and fiddling a few kernel
settings. Back then, I was actually keeping up with what was new.
Since then there hasn't seemed much point, until now.
> Another question comes to mind, how do you backup?
Minimally... I have a simple script that makes a list of all the files
on my system, excluding any that are found in a packages file list,
then shoves the first 600MB or so on a CD along with an updated index,
and fills up the remaining space with some of the least recently backed
up files which helps to keep the CD's turning over.
> One caution about reiser, the author has been charged with murder and
> that could possibly influence further development. I admit, I have
> reiserfs on the system I'm currently typing from. I agree with
> sk8r-365, much about this whole subject could turn into a religious
> war.
Which is probably why I couldn't find many useful comparisons.
Fredderic
|
|
|
|
|