Re: Partitioning of new machine
Le 9 août 2014 à 06:04, Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> a écrit :
> On 08/08/14 06:14 AM, B. M. wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> While I'm waiting for the components of my new machine (testing/jessie)
>> I'm thinking about the optimal partitioning scheme which should last for the
>> next 10 years :-)
>>
>> The system looks like:
>> Haswell 3.4 GHz
>> 8 GB RAM (later upgradeable up to 32 GB)
>> 250 GB SSD
>> 2 TB HDD
>>
>> What do you think about the following:
>>
>> === SSD: ===
>> /boot unencrypted, 300 MB
>> / ext4, encrypted, 25-30 GB
>> /home ext4, encrypted, keyfile, 220-225 GB
>> User data for two users
>>
>>
>> === HDD (in this order for performance reasons): ===
>> /var HDD, ext4, encrypted, keyfile, 25 GB
>> It's so large because I want to add a directory /var/src below /var
>> to compile a kernel on the HDD if necessary
>>
>> /databases HDD, ext4, encrypted, keyfile, barrier=0, 10 GB
>> Used for the db's of digikam (1 user), akonadi and amarok
>> (2 users each)
>>
>> swap HDD, swapfs, encrypted, 5 GB (not hibernation)
>>
>> /video HDD, btrfs, 560 GB
>> Subvolumes:
>> /video/editing
>> /video/series
>> => for video editing or series, no backup, not encrypted
>>
>> /data HDD, btrfs, encrypted, keyfile, RAID1 (2 x 700 GB).
>> With subvolumes for digikam archive, movie archive and music
>>
>>
>> What do you think (sizes, file systems, number of partitions, ...)?
>> Is it still a good idea to put /var on an HDD, not a SSD?
>> Video editing is currently not required, it's more like an option for the
>> future (1y or so) and might require a second HDD (source and target
>> drive for rendering to increase r/w performance).
>> To keep it simple and usable I'll use keyfiles for all partitions except
>> /.
>>
>> Thanks for your inputs and all the best.
> Everyone has their own preferences on this but I actually have several machines with a very similar setup. The major difference is that I use RAID rather than single mechanical disks.
>
> My preference is to use the SSD for /, with an area left for for the GUID boot.
>
> I partition the larger drive/array as a single partition and mount it as /home. I've never really seen a need to engage in the multiple partitions that some people seem to like. You're never likely to fill the / partition and if you fill the /home with some of your data, then expand the RAID array.
>
> Some people like LVM but frankly with the good tools Linux has for resizing partitions, it's rarely needed.
>
> I don't like the idea of using two partitions on a single HD for RAID, which seems to be your plan. I'd opt instead to go immediately to RAID 5 with 3 drives. 1T drives are quite cheap these days so the cost difference isn't significant over a single 2T. If you want to save money, a 60G SSD is all you really need for / anyway.
>
> I'm also not concerned about wear on an SSD. I've been using them for years and have yet to have one fail. It will happen at some point, but I trust them more than I trust an HD. However since your SSD isn't in a RAID array, I wouldn't trust it with anything that can't be recovered with a fresh Linux install.
>
Well, actually my idea is to have the a normal, hourly backup on an external /ext4-formatted drive for home and /etc. btrfs for /data in the RAID1 setup is to protect against bit rot (photo & movie archive which should be save for decades...); ontop of that I plan an additional partition for /data on the external drive as well to protect against hardware failure of the internal drive, so the only threat I currently see is a problem of the btrfs fs hurting both the internal RAID1 and the external btrfs. But if I use ext4 for the external /data backup I'm not easily protected against bit rot.
Reply to: