How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And other partitioningquestions. - Questions

This is a discussion on How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And other partitioningquestions. - Questions ; Hello! I was just curious to know... What are some good rules of thumb for configuring swap space under Linux? For that matter, are there any comprehensive guides or articles on the subject? When I used to admin NT boxes ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And other partitioningquestions.

  1. How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And other partitioningquestions.

    Hello!

    I was just curious to know... What are some good rules of thumb for
    configuring swap space under Linux? For that matter, are there any
    comprehensive guides or articles on the subject? When I used to admin
    NT boxes I used to set their "virtual memory" setting to 1.5 times
    physical memory, giving 50% over physical as swap. That was just by
    convention, or, "rule of thumb". No great scientific methodology, it is
    just what had worked for me and my coworkers for so long. Granted,
    Linux is different.

    On my box I have installed Ubuntu and moved up to the 2.6.10 kernel, if
    that matters. I am presently running on two IDE hard drives, 30Mb
    Quantum Fireball and 60Mb Seagate ST360020A. As it stands, I have 1Gb
    of physical RAM and have two swap partitions, one on each drive and both
    494.16Mb. Initially I had set up a 32-bit install on one drive, and a
    64-bit (AMD64) on the other. I decided to go with my old NT convention
    for grins, and give 50% over physical for swap. But since I have both
    swap partitions available, I have both the 32 and 64 bit installs using
    both swaps, for a nearly 1:1 phys:swap ratio.

    Reason I am asking is because I will be very soon installing a 250Gb
    Western Digital SATA drive. Long story on the old one, but short
    version is it shot craps before I could ever use it. But now since I
    will be getting all this breathing room I will of course be
    reconfiguring my partitioning scheme. So given the opportunity I would
    like to put some method to the madness.

    One consideration, besides size, is location. This question goes beyond
    swap space, too. How does Linux like to have it's partitions metered
    across multiple drives? Should the root and swap be on different
    physical drives or does it matter? If it is better to separate, which
    would benefit most from "the faster drive"? Does it actually help to
    split the swap amongst partitions on differing drives, similar to (yes,
    remotely similar to) how striping speeds up RAID performance?

    While I am asking, I would also be interested in suggestions with regard
    to partitions and placements. I have been running 5Gb roots that include
    my /var and /home. Most of my "media", including music, video, photos,
    and the like I have been keeping on a separate partition that I mount
    under /mnt/share. This way I have access to it from whichever root I
    boot to, as well as making it publicly readable to my family's logins.
    Not much needs to be kept private, and, well, I manage that when need be.

    I think it would be unwise for me to make the /home directories be the
    same between the two installs (32 and 64-bit). But I am intruiged to
    know how far such a notion could be taken. Being able to have
    Thunderbird and my GPG keys available no matter which I boot to would be
    rather convenient. I could spend more time in 64-bit land. Right now I
    must use the 32-bit install for that.

    Lastly, since I don't want to tap you all toooo much all at once, I am
    curious about this whole "chroot" thing. Since I have both 32 and
    64-bit installs, is there a way to make my 32-bit root BE the chroot
    under 64-bit? That would totally rock! I have zero experience with this
    and am only sort-of understanding how it all works. I would like to,
    for instance, just run 64-bit firefox and have it use 32-bit
    libflashplayer.so. That, of course, being one of the very few things
    keeping me on the 32-bit side 90% of the time when I would much rather
    go 64-bit as much as possible. But I have heard that you can't have a
    64-bit app call a 32-bit library. Okay. So then 32-bit FF. But then
    that also means all the dependencies for FF and for FlashPlayer, right?
    Well, then, at what point DO the 64 and 32-bit parts commingle? Would
    32-bit FF run on the 64-bit X session? That, I could see. Or is it
    some "xnest" type set-up? If it dose run on the display, would it talk
    to 64-bit Gnome? What kind of crazy nightmare am I getting myself into
    with this chroot thingy? Am I better off sitting in a corner, beating my
    head against the wall? Maybe I should stop wasting my time on this and
    use it more (!) effectively, writing pleas to Macromedia to get off
    their corporate duffs and spend the, what, hour or two it would (should:
    can't know with closed-source) take to do the damned port.

    Well that's all the time my meter had, and then some. Thanks in advance
    for the time to read me and for any help and advice. And apologies for
    the cross-posting. You know, I have not seen any "forum guides" of any
    sort come down the pike on any of these newsgroups for a few months. So
    which Linux newsgroup is good for what sorts of linuxy things I just
    don't know. I'd "RTFM" on these newsgroups if I knew where to find it.

    Peace!
    Morningdew

  2. Re: How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And other partitioning questions.

    On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:30:22 -0600, Morningdew wrote:


    (Apologies for top posting,)
    Hi
    I was told that twice the RAM is a good rule of thumb, upto a max of
    1024MB
    I guess that much more is a waste of resources

    L & P

    Richard



    > Hello!
    >
    > I was just curious to know... What are some good rules of thumb for
    > configuring swap space under Linux? For that matter, are there any
    > comprehensive guides or articles on the subject? When I used to admin
    > NT boxes I used to set their "virtual memory" setting to 1.5 times
    > physical memory, giving 50% over physical as swap. That was just by
    > convention, or, "rule of thumb". No great scientific methodology, it is
    > just what had worked for me and my coworkers for so long. Granted,
    > Linux is different.
    >
    > On my box I have installed Ubuntu and moved up to the 2.6.10 kernel, if
    > that matters. I am presently running on two IDE hard drives, 30Mb
    > Quantum Fireball and 60Mb Seagate ST360020A. As it stands, I have 1Gb
    > of physical RAM and have two swap partitions, one on each drive and both
    > 494.16Mb. Initially I had set up a 32-bit install on one drive, and a
    > 64-bit (AMD64) on the other. I decided to go with my old NT convention
    > for grins, and give 50% over physical for swap. But since I have both
    > swap partitions available, I have both the 32 and 64 bit installs using
    > both swaps, for a nearly 1:1 phys:swap ratio.
    >
    > Reason I am asking is because I will be very soon installing a 250Gb
    > Western Digital SATA drive. Long story on the old one, but short
    > version is it shot craps before I could ever use it. But now since I
    > will be getting all this breathing room I will of course be
    > reconfiguring my partitioning scheme. So given the opportunity I would
    > like to put some method to the madness.
    >
    > One consideration, besides size, is location. This question goes beyond
    > swap space, too. How does Linux like to have it's partitions metered
    > across multiple drives? Should the root and swap be on different
    > physical drives or does it matter? If it is better to separate, which
    > would benefit most from "the faster drive"? Does it actually help to
    > split the swap amongst partitions on differing drives, similar to (yes,
    > remotely similar to) how striping speeds up RAID performance?
    >
    > While I am asking, I would also be interested in suggestions with regard
    > to partitions and placements. I have been running 5Gb roots that include
    > my /var and /home. Most of my "media", including music, video, photos,
    > and the like I have been keeping on a separate partition that I mount
    > under /mnt/share. This way I have access to it from whichever root I
    > boot to, as well as making it publicly readable to my family's logins.
    > Not much needs to be kept private, and, well, I manage that when need be.
    >
    > I think it would be unwise for me to make the /home directories be the
    > same between the two installs (32 and 64-bit). But I am intruiged to
    > know how far such a notion could be taken. Being able to have
    > Thunderbird and my GPG keys available no matter which I boot to would be
    > rather convenient. I could spend more time in 64-bit land. Right now I
    > must use the 32-bit install for that.
    >
    > Lastly, since I don't want to tap you all toooo much all at once, I am
    > curious about this whole "chroot" thing. Since I have both 32 and
    > 64-bit installs, is there a way to make my 32-bit root BE the chroot
    > under 64-bit? That would totally rock! I have zero experience with this
    > and am only sort-of understanding how it all works. I would like to,
    > for instance, just run 64-bit firefox and have it use 32-bit
    > libflashplayer.so. That, of course, being one of the very few things
    > keeping me on the 32-bit side 90% of the time when I would much rather
    > go 64-bit as much as possible. But I have heard that you can't have a
    > 64-bit app call a 32-bit library. Okay. So then 32-bit FF. But then
    > that also means all the dependencies for FF and for FlashPlayer, right?
    > Well, then, at what point DO the 64 and 32-bit parts commingle? Would
    > 32-bit FF run on the 64-bit X session? That, I could see. Or is it
    > some "xnest" type set-up? If it dose run on the display, would it talk
    > to 64-bit Gnome? What kind of crazy nightmare am I getting myself into
    > with this chroot thingy? Am I better off sitting in a corner, beating my
    > head against the wall? Maybe I should stop wasting my time on this and
    > use it more (!) effectively, writing pleas to Macromedia to get off
    > their corporate duffs and spend the, what, hour or two it would (should:
    > can't know with closed-source) take to do the damned port.
    >
    > Well that's all the time my meter had, and then some. Thanks in advance
    > for the time to read me and for any help and advice. And apologies for
    > the cross-posting. You know, I have not seen any "forum guides" of any
    > sort come down the pike on any of these newsgroups for a few months. So
    > which Linux newsgroup is good for what sorts of linuxy things I just
    > don't know. I'd "RTFM" on these newsgroups if I knew where to find it.
    >
    > Peace!
    > Morningdew



  3. Re: How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And other partitioning questions.

    On , Morningdew wrote:
    >
    >I was just curious to know... What are some good rules of thumb for
    >configuring swap space under Linux? For that matter, are there any
    >comprehensive guides or articles on the subject? When I used to admin
    >NT boxes I used to set their "virtual memory" setting to 1.5 times
    >physical memory, giving 50% over physical as swap. That was just by
    >convention, or, "rule of thumb". No great scientific methodology, it is
    >just what had worked for me and my coworkers for so long. Granted,
    >Linux is different.


    There is *no* direct relationship between physical memory and swapfile
    size. These rules of thumb originated in the 70s when people had to
    commission systems before knowing what the application mix would be.
    The idea was that a system with a lot of memory would be used for
    memory intensive applications, so should have a lot of swapspace as
    well. Some systems also used swapspace to hold a memory dump in the
    event of a system crash, so the swap had to be at least as large as
    physical memory.

    Modern Linux systems with lots of physical memory will almost never
    swap, unless you're doing something very unusual. If you find the
    system is swapping a lot, you should add more physical memory rather
    than fiddling around with swapspace, My main Linux server is currently
    using 778k of swapspace, and this is quite typical. Despite this,
    people keep configuring gigabytes of swapspace.

    You can always add a swap file later, which will keep you going until
    you upgrade memory.

    HTH, Paul
    --
    Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk

  4. Re: How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And otherpartitioning questions.

    Paul Sherwin wrote:

    > There is *no* direct relationship between physical memory and swapfile
    > size. These rules of thumb originated in the 70s when people had to
    > commission systems before knowing what the application mix would be.


    Okay. I would think that the books and distros installers would mention
    that it is largely not need after a certain point.

    > The idea was that a system with a lot of memory would be used for
    > memory intensive applications, so should have a lot of swapspace as
    > well. Some systems also used swapspace to hold a memory dump in the
    > event of a system crash, so the swap had to be at least as large as
    > physical memory.


    Well I am not going to be debugging a core dump like that anyway =)

    > Modern Linux systems with lots of physical memory will almost never
    > swap, unless you're doing something very unusual. If you find the
    > system is swapping a lot, you should add more physical memory rather
    > than fiddling around with swapspace, My main Linux server is currently
    > using 778k of swapspace, and this is quite typical. Despite this,
    > people keep configuring gigabytes of swapspace.


    Yes, here I am with just shy of a gig. But I should not that besides
    the new hard disk coming soon, I *have* been having problems with
    memory, even at a Gig. Yeah, I know it seem ridiculous. Even with what
    I would figure to be a "light" load running under Gnome I am sitting at
    89% memory use, of which 53% is cache. Now 53% of the 89% or 53 _of_
    the 89% is ambiguous in gnome-system-monitor. But, still... What is
    that Cache? HDD cache? Why does that accumulate rather than flush? If
    I have a power outage with that much cache sitting in RAM won't I be
    likely to foul up a partition? I guess that'll put the journals to the
    test. But dang, I am just sitting here typing and it won't go down.

    See, at least three times now I have had my system schitzotically freeze
    up on me when that memory ticker hit 100%. It starts to "stutter", then
    gets to where I get a half-second of life between 30-second to several
    minute seizures. Even at a console, outside of X. Firefox with lots of
    tabs was part to blame once. Totem running a downloaded SWF another
    time. Come to find out that on my 32-bit install, I didn't have either
    swap partition in the /etc/fstab file. I fixed that but have not maxed
    out to reproduce the problem yet. I'm sure I'll get to test with the
    swap space soon, though.

    > You can always add a swap file later, which will keep you going until
    > you upgrade memory.


    Too broke to joke, so more memory is not happening real soon. Why does
    my Linux barf and sputter when physical memory gets full? You would
    think it would have some more graceful contingencies. Perhaps my disk
    cache (assuming that's what the "cache" portion is) is not configured
    properly and needs adjusting. Ugh. Thanks for the reply, though.

    > HTH, Paul
    > --
    > Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk


    Oh, and I, like, re-posted this message a few times because it was not
    showing up for me. I tried cutting down some of the cross-posts, and
    finally cut back the subject line and got it to post. Heh... of course
    it seems you got at least one of them on your nntp server that mine
    didn't want to show, 'cuz you replied and I don't see the original. Way
    to go Charter Communications. Your NNTP service is not only slow, it
    also bites.

    Peace,
    Morningdew

  5. Re: How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And otherpartitioning questions.

    Morningdew wrote:
    > Paul Sherwin wrote:


    > Yes, here I am with just shy of a gig. But I should not that besides
    > the new hard disk coming soon, I *have* been having problems with
    > memory, even at a Gig. Yeah, I know it seem ridiculous. Even with what
    > I would figure to be a "light" load running under Gnome I am sitting at
    > 89% memory use, of which 53% is cache. Now 53% of the 89% or 53 _of_
    > the 89% is ambiguous in gnome-system-monitor. But, still... What is
    > that Cache? HDD cache? Why does that accumulate rather than flush? If
    > I have a power outage with that much cache sitting in RAM won't I be
    > likely to foul up a partition? I guess that'll put the journals to the
    > test. But dang, I am just sitting here typing and it won't go down.


    Cache is used to store data that can be used many times, so instead of loading
    everything from harddrive you may have a copy in ram, which makes it faster to
    load next time you start. Eg, you start mozilla, parts of it will be cached,
    you turn off mozilla, next time you start (assuming the cache isn't
    overwritten), it will start a lot faster as parts of it is already in ram.

    Sooner or later you will come to a point where the whole memory is used
    (mostly by cache), at that point there will be part of the cache overwritten
    with more important/relevant data.

    As long as you don't use XFS as your filesystem, you don't have to worry about
    the filesystem to being stored in RAM, if you use XFS, then you will have
    parts of the filesystem in RAM and you will get corruptions if you cut the
    power to the computer, XFS are mainly used where you need high speed and where
    you have the original data stored on another filesystem (common in video editing).


    > See, at least three times now I have had my system schitzotically freeze
    > up on me when that memory ticker hit 100%. It starts to "stutter", then
    > gets to where I get a half-second of life between 30-second to several
    > minute seizures. Even at a console, outside of X. Firefox with lots of
    > tabs was part to blame once. Totem running a downloaded SWF another
    > time. Come to find out that on my 32-bit install, I didn't have either
    > swap partition in the /etc/fstab file. I fixed that but have not maxed
    > out to reproduce the problem yet. I'm sure I'll get to test with the
    > swap space soon, though.


    If you run out of RAM and don't have SWAP, then you run into trouble, I think
    you won't notice things as much next time you max out.



    > Oh, and I, like, re-posted this message a few times because it was not
    > showing up for me. I tried cutting down some of the cross-posts, and
    > finally cut back the subject line and got it to post. Heh... of course
    > it seems you got at least one of them on your nntp server that mine
    > didn't want to show, 'cuz you replied and I don't see the original. Way
    > to go Charter Communications. Your NNTP service is not only slow, it
    > also bites.


    Depending on your ISP/NGP, it can take a while before you see a post, even
    your own, to appear on the newsgroups... Some have built in "spam" detectors
    and will filter away posts and in those cases you won't see the "offending"
    post at all (nothing is perfect, so valide mail can be filtered away too).


    //Aho

  6. Re: How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And other partitioning questions.

    On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:04:29 +0000, Richard Eggleston wrote:

    > (Apologies for top posting,)
    > Hi
    > I was told that twice the RAM is a good rule of thumb, upto a max of
    > 1024MB
    > I guess that much more is a waste of resources


    I almost don't believe this... You KNOW that top-posting sucks, you
    apologize in advance for it, and yet YOU STILL DO IT??? WHAT THE **** IS
    WRONG WITH YOU?

    You also don't know how to snip out the irrelavent portions of the text
    you quoted.

    I didn't think it was possible, but you are now hereby declared THE ALL
    TIME BIGGEST ****ING MORON EVER SEEN ON USENET.

    Congratulations, dip****.

    --
    If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
    Linux Registered User #327951


  7. Re: How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And otherpartitioning questions.



    On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Paul Sherwin wrote:

    > On , Morningdew wrote:
    > >
    > >I was just curious to know... What are some good rules of thumb for
    > >configuring swap space under Linux? For that matter, are there any
    > >comprehensive guides or articles on the subject? When I used to admin
    > >NT boxes I used to set their "virtual memory" setting to 1.5 times
    > >physical memory, giving 50% over physical as swap. That was just by
    > >convention, or, "rule of thumb". No great scientific methodology, it is
    > >just what had worked for me and my coworkers for so long. Granted,
    > >Linux is different.

    >
    > There is *no* direct relationship between physical memory and swapfile
    > size. These rules of thumb originated in the 70s when people had to
    > commission systems before knowing what the application mix would be.
    > The idea was that a system with a lot of memory would be used for
    > memory intensive applications, so should have a lot of swapspace as
    > well. Some systems also used swapspace to hold a memory dump in the
    > event of a system crash, so the swap had to be at least as large as
    > physical memory.
    >
    > Modern Linux systems with lots of physical memory will almost never
    > swap, unless you're doing something very unusual. If you find the
    > system is swapping a lot, you should add more physical memory rather
    > than fiddling around with swapspace, My main Linux server is currently
    > using 778k of swapspace, and this is quite typical. Despite this,
    > people keep configuring gigabytes of swapspace.
    >
    > You can always add a swap file later, which will keep you going until
    > you upgrade memory.


    I agree, except you left out that X and its applications use huge amounts
    of memory. All of my servers each have a 128m swap partition and run with
    about 256-512m RAM. They NEVER swap, but there is no point in not having a
    health size swap partition because it is very easy to reclaim the space.
    With the cost of hdd space these days, why not allocate a 512m swap
    partition? It could come in handy in the future. If your computer starts
    to use it, do what morningdew says and add more memory. If your system is
    steadily using your swap it will bottleneck systems performance
    substantially.

    -jackery


    >
    > HTH, Paul
    > --
    > Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk
    >



  8. Re: How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And other partitioning questions.

    On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:28:04 -0800, Sir Jackery
    wrote:

    >I agree, except you left out that X and its applications use huge amounts
    >of memory. All of my servers each have a 128m swap partition and run with
    >about 256-512m RAM. They NEVER swap, but there is no point in not having a
    >health size swap partition because it is very easy to reclaim the space.
    >With the cost of hdd space these days, why not allocate a 512m swap
    >partition? It could come in handy in the future. If your computer starts
    >to use it, do what morningdew says and add more memory. If your system is
    >steadily using your swap it will bottleneck systems performance
    >substantially.


    Sure, it's a false economy to run with no swap at all, given the cost
    of HD space. I think 256-512 RAM is pretty typical for a current Linux
    desktop machine and they won't swap much even running big X desktops.
    I usually configure 128m and keep an eye on things for the first few
    hours. I've never had to add more swap yet :-)

    You'll soon notice if your system is hitting the swap partition hard -
    it'll run like a dog.

    Best regards, Paul
    --
    Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk

  9. Re: How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And other partitioning questions.

    On , Morningdew wrote:
    >
    >See, at least three times now I have had my system schitzotically freeze
    >up on me when that memory ticker hit 100%. It starts to "stutter", then
    >gets to where I get a half-second of life between 30-second to several
    >minute seizures. Even at a console, outside of X. Firefox with lots of
    >tabs was part to blame once. Totem running a downloaded SWF another
    >time. Come to find out that on my 32-bit install, I didn't have either
    >swap partition in the /etc/fstab file. I fixed that but have not maxed
    >out to reproduce the problem yet. I'm sure I'll get to test with the
    >swap space soon, though.


    This shouldn't happen when you start to swap, and it suggests you
    didn't have your swap partition enabled properly. You *will* get a
    performance hit though.

    >Too broke to joke, so more memory is not happening real soon. Why does
    >my Linux barf and sputter when physical memory gets full? You would
    >think it would have some more graceful contingencies. Perhaps my disk
    >cache (assuming that's what the "cache" portion is) is not configured
    >properly and needs adjusting. Ugh. Thanks for the reply, though.


    'cache' is filesystem cache. Linux will use free memory to cache the
    filesystem. A large 'cache' figure indicates you have lots of free
    memory, not that you're running out. It will get smaller as processes
    grab more memory. What matters is how much space is being used on your
    swap partition - if this is less than a couple of megs, your memory
    configuration is fine.

    Best regards, Paul
    --
    Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk

  10. Re: How do I determine appropriate swapspace settings? And other partitioning questions.

    Morningdew wrote:

    > Hello!
    >
    > I was just curious to know... What are some good rules of thumb for
    > configuring swap space under Linux? For that matter, are there any
    > comprehensive guides or articles on the subject? When I used to admin
    > NT boxes I used to set their "virtual memory" setting to 1.5 times
    > physical memory, giving 50% over physical as swap. That was just by
    > convention, or, "rule of thumb". No great scientific methodology, it is
    > just what had worked for me and my coworkers for so long. Granted,
    > Linux is different.
    >

    Yep. the fundamental difference is that NT uses a traditional VM design
    (linux briefly had a traditional vm in the 2.4 series) based around keeping
    what's currently in memory also in swap so that when you need more memory
    you can instantly zap those clean pages and get more memory because they've
    aready been written to disk in idle time. the upshot of this is that you
    MUST have at least as much swap as you have physical memory.

    Linux 2.4.0 -> 2.4.11 had a vm of this style. (Rick's vm) andrea's vm which
    replaced rick's in the 2.4 stable series works like the linux vm has
    historically worked that is to say pages are only kept in memory and disk
    is used as an overflow only. 2.6 continues with andrea's vm.

    > On my box I have installed Ubuntu and moved up to the 2.6.10 kernel, if
    > that matters. I am presently running on two IDE hard drives, 30Mb
    > Quantum Fireball and 60Mb Seagate ST360020A. As it stands, I have 1Gb
    > of physical RAM and have two swap partitions, one on each drive and both
    > 494.16Mb. Initially I had set up a 32-bit install on one drive, and a
    > 64-bit (AMD64) on the other. I decided to go with my old NT convention
    > for grins, and give 50% over physical for swap. But since I have both
    > swap partitions available, I have both the 32 and 64 bit installs using
    > both swaps, for a nearly 1:1 phys:swap ratio.
    >


    That's HEAPS for linux see above.

    > Reason I am asking is because I will be very soon installing a 250Gb
    > Western Digital SATA drive. Long story on the old one, but short
    > version is it shot craps before I could ever use it. But now since I
    > will be getting all this breathing room I will of course be
    > reconfiguring my partitioning scheme. So given the opportunity I would
    > like to put some method to the madness.
    >



    > One consideration, besides size, is location. This question goes beyond
    > swap space, too. How does Linux like to have it's partitions metered
    > across multiple drives? Should the root and swap be on different
    > physical drives or does it matter? If it is better to separate, which
    > would benefit most from "the faster drive"? Does it actually help to
    > split the swap amongst partitions on differing drives, similar to (yes,
    > remotely similar to) how striping speeds up RAID performance?
    >

    you could create a software raid of two small partitions and swap on that.
    as the disk access is going to be way more expensive than the raiding.

    > While I am asking, I would also be interested in suggestions with regard
    > to partitions and placements. I have been running 5Gb roots that include
    > my /var and /home. Most of my "media", including music, video, photos,
    > and the like I have been keeping on a separate partition that I mount
    > under /mnt/share. This way I have access to it from whichever root I
    > boot to, as well as making it publicly readable to my family's logins.
    > Not much needs to be kept private, and, well, I manage that when need be.
    >

    We have that in our house too. we have a 200GB XFS volume called /bigish
    which will soon be expanded with another disk to 400GB yay for LVM

    > I think it would be unwise for me to make the /home directories be the
    > same between the two installs (32 and 64-bit). But I am intruiged to
    > know how far such a notion could be taken. Being able to have
    > Thunderbird and my GPG keys available no matter which I boot to would be
    > rather convenient. I could spend more time in 64-bit land. Right now I
    > must use the 32-bit install for that.
    >

    if the distro is the same (ubuntu) there is no reason not to share /home
    just make sure that /etc/passwd /etc/shadow /etc/groups and /etc/gshadow are
    synced between the systems and you should be all good.

    > Lastly, since I don't want to tap you all toooo much all at once, I am
    > curious about this whole "chroot" thing. Since I have both 32 and
    > 64-bit installs, is there a way to make my 32-bit root BE the chroot
    > under 64-bit? That would totally rock! I have zero experience with this
    > and am only sort-of understanding how it all works. I would like to,
    > for instance, just run 64-bit firefox and have it use 32-bit
    > libflashplayer.so. That, of course, being one of the very few things
    > keeping me on the 32-bit side 90% of the time when I would much rather
    > go 64-bit as much as possible. But I have heard that you can't have a
    > 64-bit app call a 32-bit library. Okay. So then 32-bit FF. But then
    > that also means all the dependencies for FF and for FlashPlayer, right?
    > Well, then, at what point DO the 64 and 32-bit parts commingle? Would
    > 32-bit FF run on the 64-bit X session? That, I could see. Or is it
    > some "xnest" type set-up? If it dose run on the display, would it talk
    > to 64-bit Gnome? What kind of crazy nightmare am I getting myself into
    > with this chroot thingy? Am I better off sitting in a corner, beating my
    > head against the wall? Maybe I should stop wasting my time on this and
    > use it more (!) effectively, writing pleas to Macromedia to get off
    > their corporate duffs and spend the, what, hour or two it would (should:
    > can't know with closed-source) take to do the damned port.
    >

    A chroot won't do what you want. User Mode Linux might tho but it'd be
    reasonably complicated.

    regards Grant.
    --
    All software sucks all hardware sucks.

+ Reply to Thread