Re: Partitioning hard drives
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Tim Kelley wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 November 2004 08:06, Bob wrote:
> > Hello list, I've read the section in the install manual about
> > recommended partitioning schemes, but thought I would also see what the
> > collective wisdom has to say on the matter.
rest of the "collective partition wisdom"
http://www.linux-1u.net/Partition/
my preference ( from the outside of the disk going in or from inside
growing out of the platter ?? )
/ 128MB
/tmp 128MB
/var 512MB
/usr 4096MB
swap 256MB
/home rest of disk
use symlinks for things *you* modified and put it into /home
and only /home and /etc is backed up
> Well, if you are going to have all these filesystems on the same set of drive
> spindles, there really isn't any use to carving up /usr and everything else
> at all.
>
> Separating filesystems mainly gives the advantage of using different mount
> options for each filesystem; such as mounting /var "noexec" and /usr "read
> only".
and one wants / as small as possible so that one can boot into single user
and fix the bad/broken partitions and other disk disks ( if its raid )
if / is 128MB ... only that portion has to be functional
vs the entire 80GB or 250GB of disks in order for the disk
to fix itself
and /tmp is usually chmod 1777 ...
> putting /var on a separate filesystem is almost always a good idea, since it
> is so active; but on a different set of drives is the best idea.
>
> putting /usr on a part by itself allows read only mounting if that gets you
> off. Of course installing software requires an extra step.
>
> In debian most all of the server packages will have most of their data in /var
> (apache, mysql, postgresql, and so forth).
>
> If it's a file server then /srv (or /export) separate would be a good idea as
> well.
i put ALL user modified files in /home ... and /etc config files is small
enoug to fit onto a floppy
> Really it depends on the machines purpose and what's running on it. If
> your /home is nfs mounted, of course you have no use for a separate /home, do
> you?
and what one is comfortable with .. which includes (failsafe) backups
> RAID 10 is a huge money waster as well, only in the most extreme situations
> would I use it. RAID 5 is fine for four drives.
raid5 with 4 disks is okay .. but it's still 25% of "wasted" disk space
- lots of fun probability and statistics fun/gamble for failure
analysis of 1 disks vs 4 disks in one server
raid in general is a money and time waster .. but a good techie challenge
for hands off raid booting/fixing/resyncing itself, all hands off
except the insertaion of new replacement disk
- raid helps if and only if you cannot go down because of one
dead disk
- but the reality is that that system will most likely go down
when you replace the dead disks ... unless you have properly
setup and tested the server with hotswap and inserting a brand
new replacement disk
- power supply, fans, nic, memory, etc all can go bad long before
the disks goes bad ...
- for protecting against failure, its 10x better to have a whole
2nd server ... mirrored but NOT live, and if its live, it'd be
a cluster of 2 servers
> If real time redundancy is not that important, you may consider a non-raid
> setup.
>
> It depends on what you are running and what you intend to do with it.
> Partitioning schemes don't exist in a vacuum; what makes sense for one
> machine may be utterly stupid for another.
c ya
alvin
Reply to: