Re: BTRFS and debian
On Mon 09 Jul 2018 at 20:33:00 (-0700), David Christensen wrote:
> On 07/09/18 11:17, Ge wrote:
> >1. Whats the appropriate layout?
> >My current layout is:
> >
> >LVM VG Laptop-vg LV root 16.9GB Linux device mapper (linear)
> >#1 16.9GB f btrfs /
>
> I use 16 GiB SSD's and/or 16 GiB USB flash drives for system drives.
> I wipe and test them using the manufacturer's diagnostic tool before
> installing Debian, or just wipe them with dd(1) if I do not have a
> tool. In the Debian Installer, I choose 'manual' for 'partitioning
> method', create a new partition table (MBR), and create three
> primary partitions:
>
> 1 ~1 GiB btrfs mounted at /boot
> 2 ~2 GiB LUKS (random key) with swap
> 3 ~10 GiB LUKS (passphrase) with btrfs mounted at /
>
> 10 GiB root is enough for single-user Xfce workstation (my bulk data
> is on a file server).
I'm not an LVM user so I live with my partitioning for years.
I would opine that 10GiB is rather risky for a root partition
(with /home separate). My smallest root partition, on an old
laptop that I've been using since 2009, is 15GiB (74.5 GiB drive).
I'm not a DE user, which might reduce usage a little, but /usr
alone ranges from 8.4GiB (jessie on that laptop) to 10.2GiB
(wheezy, as it happens, on a desktop). That's without giving
any consideration to /var and /tmp.
> >Should i make a different partition for /home/ ?
>
> I don't -- I put my bulk data on a file server, including all e-mail
> attachments. My home directory is ~1 GB.
>
>
> (If/when I want to travel with my laptop, I will need to figure out
> how to set up a VPN to my file server.)
I would find that rather risky, so I have a "proper" separate,
encrypted /home that ranges from 50GiB (laptop) to ~400GiB
(desktops)—basically, the rest of the drive, though one laptop
gives a fair amount of space over to a W10 installation.
Bear in mind that were you to make your root far too large, it's easy
enough to borrow some space by symlinking to, say, /var/local/myname
(for unencrypted, less sensitive material).
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: