Re: Partitioning advice, 13.9 GB HD
lists1 <lists1@pilosoft.net> writes:
> Here's my partition scheme. Opinion?
IMHO it's way too complicated. :-) My laptop has two partitions, for
/ and /home, and I'm quite happy with that. Having /home separate is
useful since if you reinstall you can do it without nuking all of your
personal data; otherwise, the extra partitions just add complexity and
inflexibility.
> I read that deb packages take a lot of space under / , as opposed to
> rpm based distros that stick packages in opt and/or usr.
Maybe you're thinking of APT downloading packages into
/var/cache/apt/archives before installing them? I wouldn't feel
compelled to create a huge /; if you feel compelled to make it a
separate partition, the sum of /bin, /etc, /sbin, and /lib here is
just over 40 MB.
> Should tmp be this large or larger? This box has my cd burner
> (never got it working on my desktop). I'll be downloading and
> burning iso images, so figure 700 MB+ dowloads, mkisofs, etc.
I'd just use $HOME for this. Partitioning /tmp is a little tricky; on
a production system you might want it separate so that a full /tmp
doesn't also squish things like mail spools, but if /tmp fills up you
have a set of other problems.
> On the bind/apache/mail box with the partitioning scheme above,
> should I make the directory where the apache web site files are
> larger, and home much smaller? If I remember correctly, that's
> usr/local/apache/htdocs/* on suse, so user would be made larger, or
> is it easy enough to put web site docs in home/* directories, and
> link to them from the apache config file?
It is *by default* /var/www on Debian, but it should be easy enough to
repoint the Apache root by changing the configuration file
appropriately (or by a symlink). The package management system should
only create empty directories under /usr/local, and never use /opt at
all.
--
David Maze dmaze@debian.org http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell
Reply to: