Hello, On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 07:53:19PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > Andy Smith (12023-03-01): > > > /dev/nvme0n1p2 23G 21G 966M 96% / > > > /dev/nvme0n1p6 267M 83M 166M 34% /boot > > > /dev/nvme0n1p1 511M 5.8M 506M 2% /boot/efi > > > /dev/nvme0n1p3 9.1G 3.2G 5.5G 37% /var > > > /dev/nvme0n1p5 1.8G 14M 1.7G 1% /tmp > > > /dev/nvme0n1p7 630G 116G 482G 20% /home > > This is an excellent illustration of why creating tons of partitions > > like it's 1999 can leave you in a difficult spot. > > No it is not. The /boot and /tmp partitions are superfluous, and > /boot/efi is too large (but at a guess it was already there), but they > would barely make a difference. I was talking about them going to the effort of separating /home and /var and ending up with completely inappropriate sizings. They would have been much better off just not bothering and having it all in /. The mere presence of all these other partitions laid out on this disk after the one for / makes resizing things a lot harder than it needs to be. > On the other hand, in 2023, it is still a very good idea to separate the > system filesystem that gets written frequently from the one that gets > written rarely from the user data filesystem. No argument there, but not with disk partitions as they end up hard to resize, as seen here. OP is quite fortunate that their last partition is one that can be most easily shrunk as that at least gives them some easier options. I'd agree it would be a better example of a tight spot if their last partition were one they couldn't shrink! Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature