f



Partitioning Scheme Advice

In the new year I shall be upgrading my current 10-year-old (and slow) home desktop hardware.
I would appreaciate any thoughts/feedback on a planned new partitioning scheme?

Planned disk partitioning under Linux Mint 18.1 Serena 
with a new ASUS H110M-K motherboard and initial 16GB DDR4 SDRAM:

Disk Capacity Prtn   Size
 0    463     /      400    ext4
 0    463     /var   100    ext4

 1    149     swap    19
 1    149     /home  130    ext4

 2     74     [spare] 74    ext4, dump area for old files & subsequent deletion

 3     74     C:      20    NTFS, Windows XP Home (installed)
 3     74     G:      20    NTFS, personal documents
 3     74     K:      16    NTFS, keepsies
 3     74     S:       8    NTFS, software
 3     74     X:      10    NTFS, extras

Notes: 
HDD 0 = SATA 3, 500GB (new, not purchased yet)
HDD 1 = SATA 2 Samsung SpinPoint HD161HJ 7200rpm 160GB (existing)
HDD 2 = SATA 1 Samsung SpinPoint SP0812C 7200rpm 80GB (existing)
HDD 3 = SATA 1 Samsung SpinPoint SP0812C 7200rpm 80GB (existing)
Capacity based on "useable" allocated space rather than manufacturer specs.
Swap size equivalent to the initial estimated 16GB RAM + some extra space for upgrade to max. 32GB
Windows XP will rarely be used in future

Thanks.
0
gargoyle60
12/20/2016 12:09:12 PM
comp.os.linux.setup 9104 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

18 Replies
353 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 11

gargoyle60 <gargoyle60@example.invalid> writes:
> In the new year I shall be upgrading my current 10-year-old (and slow)
> home desktop hardware.

> I would appreaciate any thoughts/feedback on a planned new
> partitioning scheme?
>
> Planned disk partitioning under Linux Mint 18.1 Serena 
> with a new ASUS H110M-K motherboard and initial 16GB DDR4 SDRAM:
>
> Disk Capacity Prtn   Size
>  0    463     /      400    ext4
>  0    463     /var   100    ext4
>
>  1    149     swap    19
>  1    149     /home  130    ext4
>
>  2     74     [spare] 74    ext4, dump area for old files & subsequent deletion

For the Linux install, use LVM rather than raw partitions.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
0
Richard
12/20/2016 1:53:39 PM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:09:12 +0000, gargoyle60 wrote:

> In the new year I shall be upgrading my current 10-year-old (and slow)
> home desktop hardware.
> I would appreaciate any thoughts/feedback on a planned new partitioning
> scheme?
> 

I'd break out /usr as well.  And I'd move all that personal stuff from XP 
to /home just leaving the windows only stuff on NTFS.

-- 
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
0
Trenbidia
12/20/2016 6:11:11 PM
On 2016-12-20, Trenbidia <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:09:12 +0000, gargoyle60 wrote:
>
>> In the new year I shall be upgrading my current 10-year-old (and slow)
>> home desktop hardware.
>> I would appreaciate any thoughts/feedback on a planned new partitioning
>> scheme?
>> 
>
> I'd break out /usr as well.  And I'd move all that personal stuff from XP 
> to /home just leaving the windows only stuff on NTFS.

I leave /usr as part of /, but with /usr/local and /usr/src/rpm as
pointers to /local/usrlocal and /local/usrsrcrpm, Also /home a pointer
to /local/home (with /local on a separate partition) / has 20GB, /local
the rest (actually I have another 20GB partition used as a place to put
the new distro update, both so I can do a raw install of any new
partition and so I have the backup of the old installation in case I
forget that I altered /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-eth to work
properly. If I did a upgrade, all those changes would have disappeared. 

So basically five partitions a tiny GPT partition, a swap of the same
size as memory so that hibernation can be used, two 20G partition for
installation and /local for anything that changes (/home/ /usr/local/,
/usr/src/rpm -- yes I have to change /usr/lib/rpm/macros to put the
build system in /usr/src/rpm  instead of the home directory of for example root,
which is of course on / and can easily run out of room).   



>
0
William
12/20/2016 6:46:20 PM
Le 20/12/2016 à 19:11, Trenbidia a écrit :
>
> I'd break out /usr as well.

IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it 
read-only.
0
Pascal
12/20/2016 8:27:18 PM
Trenbidia <nobody@nowhere.com> writes:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:09:12 +0000, gargoyle60 wrote:
>> In the new year I shall be upgrading my current 10-year-old (and slow)
>> home desktop hardware.
>> I would appreaciate any thoughts/feedback on a planned new partitioning
>> scheme?
>
> I'd break out /usr as well.

Total waste of time and effort.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
0
Richard
12/20/2016 9:05:48 PM
On Tuesday 20 December 2016 22:05, Richard Kettlewell conveyed the 
following to comp.os.linux.setup...

> Trenbidia <nobody@nowhere.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:09:12 +0000, gargoyle60 wrote:
>>> In the new year I shall be upgrading my current 10-year-old (and
>>> slow) home desktop hardware.
>>> I would appreaciate any thoughts/feedback on a planned new
>>> partitioning scheme?
>>
>> I'd break out /usr as well.
> 
> Total waste of time and effort.

Whether it is or not is both debatable and subjective.
 
-- 
= Aragorn =
0
Aragorn
12/20/2016 10:53:12 PM
On 2016-12-20 23:53, Aragorn wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 December 2016 22:05, Richard Kettlewell conveyed the 
> following to comp.os.linux.setup...
> 
>> Trenbidia <nobody@nowhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:09:12 +0000, gargoyle60 wrote:
>>>> In the new year I shall be upgrading my current 10-year-old (and
>>>> slow) home desktop hardware.
>>>> I would appreaciate any thoughts/feedback on a planned new
>>>> partitioning scheme?
>>>
>>> I'd break out /usr as well.
>>
>> Total waste of time and effort.
> 
> Whether it is or not is both debatable and subjective.

I do not see any reason to separate nowdays /usr on a different
partition if it is on the same hard disk, or on a fresh install.

And I use a separate /usr...


-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.
0
Carlos
12/21/2016 12:43:56 AM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:27:18 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:

> Le 20/12/2016 à 19:11, Trenbidia a écrit :
>>
>> I'd break out /usr as well.
> 
> IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it
> read-only.

Or if you have multiple hard drives like the original poster. Last time I 
had a system with multiple drives, I gave /usr its own drive and things 
ran faster.  Of course, that was before the drive interface changed.  
Maybe it wouldn't make a difference with SATA drives.


-- 
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
0
Trenbidia
12/21/2016 12:46:54 AM
On 2016-12-21 01:46, Trenbidia wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:27:18 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> 
>> Le 20/12/2016 à 19:11, Trenbidia a écrit :
>>>
>>> I'd break out /usr as well.
>>
>> IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it
>> read-only.
> 
> Or if you have multiple hard drives like the original poster. Last time I 
> had a system with multiple drives, I gave /usr its own drive and things 
> ran faster.  Of course, that was before the drive interface changed.  
> Maybe it wouldn't make a difference with SATA drives.

Of course it makes a difference, we are talking of mechanical delays.
Being able to read from two disks simultaneously is faster. Even if they
are SSD, there is some advantage.

-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.
0
Carlos
12/21/2016 12:56:28 AM
On Wednesday 21 December 2016 01:43, Carlos E. R. conveyed the following 
to comp.os.linux.setup...

> On 2016-12-20 23:53, Aragorn wrote:
>> On Tuesday 20 December 2016 22:05, Richard Kettlewell conveyed the
>> following to comp.os.linux.setup...
>> 
>>> Trenbidia <nobody@nowhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:09:12 +0000, gargoyle60 wrote:
>>>>> In the new year I shall be upgrading my current 10-year-old (and
>>>>> slow) home desktop hardware.
>>>>> I would appreaciate any thoughts/feedback on a planned new
>>>>> partitioning scheme?
>>>>
>>>> I'd break out /usr as well.
>>>
>>> Total waste of time and effort.
>> 
>> Whether it is or not is both debatable and subjective.
> 
> I do not see any reason to separate nowdays /usr on a different
> partition if it is on the same hard disk, or on a fresh install.
> 
> And I use a separate /usr...

A separate filesystem allows for different mount options.  "ro" is one 
of them, albeit not the only one. ;)

-- 
= Aragorn =
0
Aragorn
12/21/2016 1:55:36 AM
Le 21/12/2016 à 01:46, Trenbidia a écrit :
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:27:18 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>
>> IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it
>> read-only.
>
> Or if you have multiple hard drives like the original poster. Last time I
> had a system with multiple drives, I gave /usr its own drive and things
> ran faster.

Faster than /usr in the / filesystem on its own drive ? I doubt it, 
because there is not much in a typical system that needs heavy 
concurrent access in / and /usr.
0
Pascal
12/21/2016 7:09:15 AM
Le 21/12/2016 � 02:55, Aragorn a �crit :
>
> A separate filesystem allows for different mount options.  "ro" is one
> of them, albeit not the only one. ;)

Or a separate filesystem type.

0
Pascal
12/21/2016 7:10:39 AM
On 21/12/16 09:10, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 21/12/2016 à 02:55, Aragorn a écrit :
>>
>> A separate filesystem allows for different mount options.  "ro" is one
>> of them, albeit not the only one. ;)
>
> Or a separate filesystem type.
>
However the modern use of SSDs and serious RAM changes the dynamic: 
access times are pretty much the same whatever part is accessed.

And swap is seldom accessed so that just about everything that is seldom 
written can go on SSD.

leaving massive spinning rust for the moving data, if you think SSDS 
won't like being constantly written to. Or can't afford it for 'large data'.

My point? Most (but not all, it is accepted) of the reasons for 
partitioning into smaller chunks have ceased to be meaningful.

0
The
12/21/2016 7:49:17 AM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 18:11:11 +0000 (UTC), Trenbidia <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>And I'd move all that personal stuff from XP 
>to /home just leaving the windows only stuff on NTFS.

Tha's the plan.
0
gargoyle60
12/21/2016 11:04:46 AM
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:09:12 +0000, gargoyle60 <gargoyle60@example.invalid> wrote:

Thanks for all the answers. I shall consider the separate partition for /usr and take it under
advisement.

I don't do gaming or other high-end graphics, apart from bilk processing circa 500 holiday photos
once a year. I place my postgres database cluster in /var (because I always have), hence that
particular choice for its own partition.

Following my initial posting I am reconsidering the size of swap as it may be excessive and as a
rule I tend not to use hibernation. My current old system has 6GB DDR2 memory and only 2GB swap
which up until now has never been used according to my monitoring. Given my low-end processing
requirements I suspect the proposed new 16GB memory would not require any swap and I can always use
the 'swapspace' utility. My primary reason for my planned upgrade is for improved speed rather than
storage.
0
gargoyle60
12/21/2016 11:14:31 AM
Le 21/12/2016 à 08:49, The Natural Philosopher a écrit :
> On 21/12/16 09:10, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>> Le 21/12/2016 à 02:55, Aragorn a écrit :
>>>
>>> A separate filesystem allows for different mount options.  "ro" is one
>>> of them, albeit not the only one. ;)
>>
>> Or a separate filesystem type.
>>
> However the modern use of SSDs and serious RAM changes the dynamic:
> access times are pretty much the same whatever part is accessed.
>
> And swap is seldom accessed so that just about everything that is seldom
> written can go on SSD.
>
> leaving massive spinning rust for the moving data, if you think SSDS
> won't like being constantly written to. Or can't afford it for 'large
> data'.
>
> My point? Most (but not all, it is accepted) of the reasons for
> partitioning into smaller chunks have ceased to be meaningful.

All your points have nothing to do with the need to use filesystems of 
different types with different parameters or mount options for different 
parts of the filesystem hierarchy.
0
Pascal
12/21/2016 10:14:50 PM
On 2016-12-21 08:09, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 21/12/2016 à 01:46, Trenbidia a écrit :
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:27:18 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>>
>>> IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it
>>> read-only.
>>
>> Or if you have multiple hard drives like the original poster. Last time I
>> had a system with multiple drives, I gave /usr its own drive and things
>> ran faster.
> 
> Faster than /usr in the / filesystem on its own drive ? I doubt it,
> because there is not much in a typical system that needs heavy
> concurrent access in / and /usr.

Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of
/bin and /lib to /usr.

-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.
0
Carlos
12/22/2016 1:53:27 AM
On 2016-12-21 08:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> My point? Most (but not all, it is accepted) of the reasons for
> partitioning into smaller chunks have ceased to be meaningful.

True.

-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.
0
Carlos
12/22/2016 1:54:42 AM
Reply: