Partition Plan: 40 gig HDD? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Partition Plan: 40 gig HDD? - Ubuntu ; Hi, I was thinking of reloading ubuntu and with this reload changing my partition plan. Any thoughts on this: 40gig HDD / = Everything else home = 2 gig swap = 1gig /usr/local = 1 gig My thoughts were: I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Partition Plan: 40 gig HDD?

  1. Partition Plan: 40 gig HDD?

    Hi,

    I was thinking of reloading ubuntu and with this reload changing my
    partition plan. Any thoughts on this:

    40gig HDD

    / = Everything else
    home = 2 gig
    swap = 1gig
    /usr/local = 1 gig

    My thoughts were: I compile a lot of stuff and would like to keep the
    non-repository versions in /usr/local. I have 1 gig RAM and rarely
    need a swap file but .... Home for me needs to be about 2 gig based on
    current needs + some room for growth. Root gets the rest because I
    could not be bothered to divide any further and this makes reloading a
    little easier.

    Any thoughts? I realise that partition schemes are a much discussed
    area :-)

    Andrew


    --
    Andrew's Corner
    http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/ubuntu_cli.html

  2. Re: Partition Plan: 40 gig HDD?

    On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:44:40 +0000 (UTC), andrew wrote:
    >
    > My thoughts were: I compile a lot of stuff and would like to keep the
    > non-repository versions in /usr/local.


    I play in different distribution and different releases of the same
    distribution.

    I had to make a /local/(bin,src,doc...) to hold common files to use
    across different distributions/releases.

    Example, you might have installed the newest release along side of your
    current "Production" install.

    You might not want the New /usr/local/RealPlayer to overwrite the
    Production /usr/local/RealPlayer contents.

    My solution is to install everything into /, share swap and keep
    common things in other directories.

    Some will insist on having /home separate. I have found different
    releases of the desktop manager have caused problems with older
    releases config files.

    My solution there is to install /home under / and link common files
    back into /accounts/$USER. Example:

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...a247e572f9de69


  3. Re: Partition Plan: 40 gig HDD?

    On 2007-09-13, andrew wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I was thinking of reloading ubuntu and with this reload changing my
    > partition plan. Any thoughts on this:
    >
    > 40gig HDD
    >
    > / = Everything else
    > home = 2 gig
    > swap = 1gig
    > /usr/local = 1 gig
    >
    > My thoughts were: I compile a lot of stuff and would like to keep the
    > non-repository versions in /usr/local. I have 1 gig RAM and rarely
    > need a swap file but .... Home for me needs to be about 2 gig based on
    > current needs + some room for growth. Root gets the rest because I
    > could not be bothered to divide any further and this makes reloading a
    > little easier.
    >
    > Any thoughts? I realise that partition schemes are a much discussed
    > area :-)
    >
    > Andrew
    >


    in this way of working /home and /usr/local would be a bit small for my
    work and data, and my system doesn't need 37gig just to run.
    But perhaps you have installed lots of repo apps, so / needs 35G.
    Maybe you could give /home and /usr/local a conservative 10G to share.

    --
    l'air du temps


  4. Re: Partition Plan: 40 gig HDD?

    andrew schreef:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I was thinking of reloading ubuntu and with this reload changing my
    > partition plan. Any thoughts on this:
    >
    > 40gig HDD
    >
    > / = Everything else
    > home = 2 gig
    > swap = 1gig
    > /usr/local = 1 gig
    >
    > My thoughts were: I compile a lot of stuff and would like to keep the
    > non-repository versions in /usr/local. I have 1 gig RAM and rarely
    > need a swap file but .... Home for me needs to be about 2 gig based on
    > current needs + some room for growth. Root gets the rest because I
    > could not be bothered to divide any further and this makes reloading a
    > little easier.
    >
    > Any thoughts? I realise that partition schemes are a much discussed
    > area :-)
    >
    > Andrew
    >
    >

    I would put in a swap=RAM and a /boot of 100MB, the rest is /
    The distribution will make a nice /home/yourname folder that just as all
    other folders can grow without restriction till your disk's maximum.

  5. Re: Partition Plan: 40 gig HDD?

    Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:

    > I would put in a swap=RAM and a /boot of 100MB, the rest is /
    > The distribution will make a nice /home/yourname folder that just as all
    > other folders can grow without restriction till your disk's maximum.


    I totally agree.

    de Kameel


  6. Re: Partition Plan: 40 gig HDD?

    De Kameel wrote:
    > Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
    >
    >> I would put in a swap=RAM and a /boot of 100MB, the rest is /
    >> The distribution will make a nice /home/yourname folder that just as
    >> all other folders can grow without restriction till your disk's maximum.

    >
    > I totally agree.
    >
    > de Kameel
    >


    And I would consider an additional "data" partition (ext or fat32,
    (fat32=MS windows accessible)). So your data stays when reinstalling
    (for whatever reason)

    --

    Xubunt6

    "Xubuntu 6 just installed ..."

  7. Re: Partition Plan: 40 gig HDD?

    xubunt6 schreef:
    > De Kameel wrote:
    >> Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
    >>
    >>> I would put in a swap=RAM and a /boot of 100MB, the rest is /
    >>> The distribution will make a nice /home/yourname folder that just as
    >>> all other folders can grow without restriction till your disk's maximum.

    >>
    >> I totally agree.
    >>
    >> de Kameel
    >>

    >
    > And I would consider an additional "data" partition (ext or fat32,
    > (fat32=MS windows accessible)). So your data stays when reinstalling
    > (for whatever reason)
    >

    These days NTFS is read-write accessible from Linux as is ext2&3 from
    Windows.
    No reason to use a FAT partition, especially on the present large disks
    and for example with the many smallish photo and mp3 files fat is quite
    inefficient.
    You can't even put a DVD on fat using a single (iso) file as fat only
    handles up to 4GB per file.

    I agree a separate data or home partition will not be destroyed during a
    properly done re-install but in this day and age most of us will have an
    external drive to (temporarily) back up during re-install.

+ Reply to Thread