Re: Random partitioning questions
On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Brad wrote:
> Yes, i realize this is something a lot of people disagree on. Which is why
> i hope to get a lot of opinions!
> One partition for swap, one for everything else. From what i've heard,
> not a very good arangement if anything goes wrong.
Also harder to back up unless you've got a 2GB tape drive or something.
> 3. How about sizes for other partitions? /home i'm thinking 750M
> (personal workstation, 6 users that are just different mailing
> addresses for me), 1G for /var (with /tmp -> /var/tmp, is that a
> bad idea?), 2.1G for /usr.
/var is awful large unless you're spooling huge print jobs or running
your own news server. You could probably reduce it.
Note that symlinking /tmp -> /var/tmp could conceivably be a problem if
/var isn't mounted (I think this happens if you boot in "emergency" mode).
Anything that used /tmp would fail. What I did was symlink /tmp ->
/var/tmp, and, on my root filesystem, create a /var directory with a /tmp
directory below it. When you mount the /var partition, the root /var/tmp
is "hidden". (Sorry, I couldn't figure out a better way to express it in
I'm not sure if this was really necessary; does anything in /sbin or /bin
> 4. hda1 should be /, but how about the rest? home var swap usr as 2 3
> 4 5?
Ideally, you should put swap on the fastest part of the disk. Sadly, on
modern drives this is almost impossible to determine. They lie like dogs
about their geometry to anyone who'll listen. :-> So, the scheme above is
likely as good as any.
Ray Ingles (248) 377-7735 firstname.lastname@example.org
Steve Ballmer: It's still ludicrous that nobody's ever made a run at us
by making UNIX a popular server platform on PCs. It's
almost too late now.
Bill Gates: It's too late.
-- Newsweek interview, June 23rd, 1997