Re: Are the assigned capacities sufficient for my setup?
Andrew,
I can't take the guided partitioning route because I use my hard disk drive to dual boot with Microsoft Windows 10.
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020, 5:53:01 AM GMT+8, Andrew Cater <amacater@gmail.com> wrote:
To be honest, on 256G - when you don't know what you want - I'd be inclined to take the guided partitioning all in one partition layout as a good start. Logs rotate these days, downloads can be deleted. If you know you're going to be running lots of things in one particular partition, that's slightly different - I have 6TB as a dedicated LVM volume under /srv here in one machine because there's a local Linux mirror across my desk, but that's exceptional
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:23 PM Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
> gajuph4pre@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I have manually partitioned my hard disk drive as follows:
>>
>> /boot is assigned 200MB
>> /root is assigned 10GB
>> /swap is assigned 20GB
>> /home is assigned 35GB
>> /var is assigned 10GB
>> /usr is assigned 5GB
>> /usr-local is assigned 5GB
>> /opt is assigned 5GB
>> /srv is assigned 5GB
>>
>> In terms of capacity, which of the above partitions are over-provisioned?
>>
>
> All of them, none of them. These are the sorts of hard
> assignments I expect from the UNIX Systems Administrator
> Handbook, circa 1997 and Solaris.
>
> My recommendation:
>
> / 100 GB
> /home 100 GB
> swap 1 GB
> optionally, /var 20 GB.
>
> You don't need a separate /boot unless you're running an odd
> filesystem for root.
>
> You don't need more swap than 1 GB because any use of swap after
> the kernel settles things down (say, ten minutes after boot)
> means that you need more RAM. And you don't really need more
> RAM.
>
> You don't need a separate /usr or /usr/local or /opt or /srv
> under any conditions. That differentiation comes from a time
> when disks were tens of megabytes.
>
> You only need a separate /var if you think you're going to fill
> up log space or similar without noticing. logrotate is pretty
> standard these days.
>
> -dsr-
>
>
Reply to: