On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 12:22, Hans Wilmer wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 01:39:58AM -0500, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > > > > > What is the lists advice in managing my /usr partition > > > > so it does not completetly fill up and cause problems in the future? > > > > > > Make it 2 GB as a minimum; that you'll need more than 4 GB is unlikely > > > for quite some time. > > > > > Umm, I'm actually chasing around the limits of an 8 GB partition for > > /usr, as I have pretty well all of Gnome and KDE on this system, > > Uh, is that really so big? I'm using neither gnome, nor kde, but at > least some of both is installed as there are some applications like > kmix I occassionally use. > > BTW, gnome doesn't seem to work very well, and I don't like kde. Maybe > I'm doing wrong with gome --- I can run the panel, for example, but > I'm not getting what the advantage of it should be. What is it about? > And how comes that it takes so much space on your hd? I think that, for what I'm doing, 8 GB is quite reasonable. I'm trying out multiple tools in order to know what is involved in configuration, the result of which is that massive amounts of stuff that *could* work with my system are installed here. Gnome and KDE are both working rather well here - Gnome far better as I use it by far more (it fits more with my "look and feel" preferences.) One of the things I enjoy is "most of the applets under the sun" on my main account (gdict, fish, gnome-stock-ticker, drive-mount, netspeed, system monitor, gweather, gnomeicu, mini-commander, task list, window list, keyboard switcher) and I can thus monitor most everything on the go on the box, and in areas elsewhere I wish to track. A quick heads-up - Gnome 2 apparently takes less indirection and abstraction than Gnome 1, and *may* take less disk space. That said, it takes so much space due to being encoded to be simplified for the "average computer user", rather than people with decades of experience and programming backgrounds. > > > as well as a significant amount on /usr/src (at least the source of > > each of three editions of kernels, that I reference with Lilo) > > Hm, I'm only keeping kernel sources on /usr/src. Any other sources > (except of things I've written myselfe) I put into an ~/inst directory > (currently 2.8G). That seems to make more sense, as /usr/src is not > writeable to normal users, and I've mounted /usr read-only > anyway. Besides, /usr/src is imho somewhat part of the > distribution/system and thereby doesn't feel to be an appropriate > place to store users' sources. This helps to keep /usr small. > I believe I didn't word that well - what I have there is kernel source trees (although I could save some space by running "make clean" on the trees.) As well, the .debs from make-kpkg runs and the .bz2s the source came from in the .debs from the Debian pools are there. That quickly becomes a few hundred MB. > > and over a gig without any real effort under /usr/local (a few games > > from Loki pads that out quickly.) > > /usr/local is afair the default location the install programs from > loki suggest. I'm trying to keep /usr clean, thus I installed the > games under /opt. This had to do with distributing partitions across > several disks for better performace, too, but currently I've only two > disks in use, so there are not so many options to choose from. > > > /usr/share is a significant block now. When I first looked at it a > > few years back, it was only a few MB at most, primarily the fortune > > files and things like miscfiles (ISO codes, area codes, airport > > codes, etc.) It is now over 2 GB here. > > 840M 'only' --- though it's quite a lot when I imagine having to read > all of the 269M under /usr/share/doc ;) Gnome and KDE use it most extensively, I find. I also pull in most any documentation package I can as I make extensive use of dwww when troubleshooting, and having its reference materials available is a very nice time saver. I know that I haven't read every last changelog entry, but there is something nice about knowing that all of this exists and is available. > > > The consideration is simply how many things you plan to install, and how > > complex of a system it will be. > > Exactly --- in particular, this makes it hard to give any > recommendation in general about how large partitions should > be. Whatever you do, at some time it's a good idea to change > partitioning, be it because of installing new disks or some partition > becoming too small. > > How what about LVM? Can it make things easier? If you can, for > example, just throw in a new disk, create a partition on it and > somehow add the additional space to an existing partition, dealing > with running out of disk space would be easy. > Probably it would. I just know that whatever you do, you will fill up your disk space - somebody will always come up with additional items needing storage - and not something you care to keep offline. At least partitioning, quotas and similar matters allow you to separate out the different areas so that you can reserve room for each. Ah - I remember the days of using cassette tapes that held a total of 32 KiB on a 16 KiB HP-9830A (but hey, I'm an old coot now ;). Now you couldn't run gzip against a README.gz in that small of a machine! > GH -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part