Re: Single root filesystem evilness decreasing in 2010? (on workstations)
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
All of that talk and gyration over a workstation disk layout? You never did
mention what the primary application usage is on this machine, which should
be a factor in how you set it up. If you're an email warrior, what damn
difference does it make, and why bother with LVM on a workstation? What
size is the new disk?
Well, sorry, I guess. But why not? Like you, I always come up with a
little layout for my needs, and I'm here wondering if that's really useful.
*I'd bother with LVM to be able to resize my volumes easily, like I said.
Also, I may not be able to use GPT because of dual-boot restrictions, and
BIOS MBR's partition table may have limitations that affect me. I don't
think that's really the point anyway.
Here's a safe bet, even with grub(2):
swap 4GB may never need it, but u have plenty of disk
/boot 100MB ext2 safe call, even if grub(2) doesn't need a /boot
/ 40GB ext2/3 journal may eliminate mandatory check interval
/var up2u ext2 sequential write/read, journal unnecessary
/home up2u xfs best performance for all file sizes and counts
For example, why would that be safer to put /boot aside on ext2 with grub2?
(Honest question, that was in my first post.)
I know, these layouts depend on so much things, and you can't possibly know
what I need if I don't tell you; in fact I wasn't exactly asking for help
to partition my volumes (even though I appreciate yours, really), I was
trying to figure out how bad it would be if I don't. Yes, "in general",
that's a broad subject that affects many things, and that's why I did all
this talk and gyration about it. If the discussion isn't of interest, well,
let it die.
You raised a point, however - that some trees might need journaling, and
some do not. I.. don't follow you. Especially for /var which, beeing
written to more often, is more subject to corruption.
BTW, it's possible to use ext4 without a journal (and before anyone points
it out, no, it's not the same as ext2).
*You may trust ext4 at this point, but I, and many others don't. xfs beats
ext4 in every category, so why bother with ext4?
I don't think anybody wants to go there. (That doesn't mean that I disagree
If you have a 500GB, 750GB, 1TB, 1.5TB, 2TB disk, leave the freak'n bulk of
it unallocated until you actually need it. This rule alone eliminates much
of the vacillation you are currently experiencing WRT "Omg what am I ever
going to do with all this disk?!"
I'm sorry if sounded that stupid to you, but I will need all of it. What's
really a problem is that the disk usage of my local software will vary
*greatly* (nearly as much as my data, yes). I either need to use LVM all
the time, mount --bind trees on a big filesystem containing all the most
variable data and software (which in some way defeats the purpose of
partitioning) or.. well, wonder if that is all necessary, and go with the
noob "single root filesystem" way - which, as I'm trying to convince myself,
may not be that dumb.
Again, if you think this is pointless, leave me with it, I'll be alright.