Re: Upgrade Problem
On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 04:30:00 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
> Andy Smith composed on 2019-01-04 08:57 (UTC):
> > Several people have now suggested saving space in a bits of the
> > filesystem that Stephen has on dedicated partitions, so this is not
> > helpful.
>
> > This partitioning scheme seems really odd and unwieldy.
>
> Indeed. Considering the absence of a sysadmin,
What's so unusual about that? For a long time I ran linux and work but
didn't consider myself an "operator" or "sysadmin". Employees in those
categories ran closed shops of MS and Apple kit, plus a splinter group
running what they considered "proper" unix on kit that I couldn't
start to afford. Most of mine was 2nd hand PC cast offs.
> absence of 2 possible primary partitions on sda,
If the OP partitioned an MBR disk intending to subdivide the
filesystem, then it might be expected that they create an extended
partition. Why bother with holding off until you've got two
primary partitions set up first?
> and the absence of sda6,
I assume that's swap.
> it makes me wonder what output from fdisk -l /dev/sda and fstab look
> like, and whether the upgrade included any partitioning changes that
> account for a lot of what's been left behind on /.
One could reboot into single user and find out whether there's a lot
of dross hidden under the mount points before /var and so on are
mounted (which I think might be what you're saying).
But while the system is currently running, a comparison of du -shx and
df for / might give a hint.
> IOW, what's behind the partitioning that exists, not just what it is
that's causing the huge consumption on /. Maybe time would be better
spent on a repartitioning and reinstallation than digging for causes.
Maybe, but the OP would become a better sysadmin by learning something
during the cleanup.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: