Re: Large Paritions... advice?
I just got through partitioning a 9 gig disk myself. I found that
fdisk worked better than cfdisk for me. I rebooted after partitioning,
as suggested by the fdisk prompts. I had no trouble making and formating
a 7 gig partition. (I was unable to format large partitions using
cfdisk and not rebooting)
Since you are making 5 partitions, at least one will have to be a logical
partition. You can only have 4 physical partitions, numbered 1-4.
Logical partitions are numbered 5-8. (you can only have four of those
too).
I dont know much about logical partitions cuz I dont use them, but I think
that they have to be created from extended partitions. cfdisk handles
this for you transparently, but I think this is a manual operation in
fdisk. If it was me, I would combine the /usr and root partitions
and save myself some head scratching.
Mike
On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 02:38:10PM -0400, Nebu John Mathai wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like to install Debian 2.0 on a 3 Gig partition which I do not
> want to split
> further.
> 1. Are the problems of possible filesystem corruption realistic?
> 2. Are there any performance losses with ext2fs on a 3 gig partition?
> 3. For a single user workstation, hooked to the internet via cable
> modem (and with
> telnet and ftp servers enabled) would a single 3 gig partition be ok,
> or would it be wiser
> to split it up?
> 4. Hardware-wise, are larger partitions worse on the drive than
> multiple small ones? Or
> is the drive indifferent?
>
> I have a single 8.4 Gig drive and I planned on having:
> 100 MB Linux root
> 2.9 Gig Linux /usr
> 100 MB Linux swap
> 3.0 Gig NT (unfortunately)
> 2 Gig FAT32 /home (common for Linux and NT)
>
> But CFDISK would not let me parition it like this so I had to incorporate
> Linux into one
> massive 3 Gig partition.
>
> I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who has had horrible experiences with
> filesystem
> corruption (hope not to hear from anyone, I guess).
>
> Thanks for any help, and if this has been discussed elsewhere please point
> me to a FAQ
> and I'll shut up.
>
Reply to: