Zenaan Harkness grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
> On 2/5/14, Anubhav Yadav <anubhav1691@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[...]
> Nowadays, the only partitions I use are:
> /boot - about 1GiB
Unless you're planning on having a lot of different kernels installed,
you really don't need a full gig for /boot (it doesn't hurt anything,
though).
> / - root partition, the rest
How Windowsian of you. :-)
> This way, it's really simple, and the old reasons (for most home users
> at least) for having multiple partitions are no longer valid (separate
> backups, making sure /root does not fill up, etc), since the HDDs are
> so capacious.
It's not just a matter of capacity. I've got a 1TB drive, and I still
partition them into separate sections:
> $ df -k
> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> rootfs 1818872 299704 1426704 18% /
> udev 10240 0 10240 0% /dev
> tmpfs 309540 12812 296728 5% /run
> /dev/disk/by-uuid/36f6b922-0e9a-4ce5-aeee-c92104fa2428 1818872 299704 1426704 18% /
> tmpfs 5120 4 5116 1% /run/lock
> tmpfs 1049560 0 1049560 0% /run/shm
> /dev/sda1 137221 20211 109689 16% /boot
> /dev/sda12 67284600 16339432 47527264 26% /home
> /dev/sdb1 307665016 40081124 251955400 14% /backup
> /dev/sda9 28835836 351612 27019444 2% /opt
> /dev/sda6 2882592 69908 2666252 3% /tmp
> /dev/sda7 28835836 7400256 19970800 28% /usr
> /dev/sda8 48060296 15360908 30258020 34% /usr/local
> /dev/sda10 28835836 1455184 25915872 6% /var
> /dev/sda11 28835836 179364 27191692 1% /var/spool
>> 1) What partitioning scheme should I choose now, If I want to have
>> /home, /var, /usr, /tmp on different partitions and I just want a windoze
>> partition of 50-60 gb.
>
> But WHY do you want them on separate partitions? XY problem?
Can't speak for him, but for me it's a segmenting issue. If I have to
wipe / for example, I'm not wiping things in /usr or /usr/local (where
my locally-installed programs go) unless I have to, or even /home. Of
course, there's no reason to want to protect /home from an install that
wants to format the / partition, right? :-)
>> 2) As you can see in the screenshot, gparted shows that the hdd is
>> only 698 gb whereas when purchased it was 720 GB. Any ways to recover
>> the lost sectors back?
>
> You "lost" none - 700,000,000,000 bytes is the correct and advertised
> size of the drive, as sold.
>
> 2^10^3 bytes is one GiB
> 10^9 bytes is a "GB" or the term used for advertising (historical, too
> much momentum to change it nowadays it seems).
Don't forget, the capacity they list is the full, complete capacity of
the drive - not the usable amount of space. You always lose some to
formatting information, etc.
--Dave
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature