Define "thin"?
I install and wrap up an ubuntu server package with a 4gb lvm pv that I
deploy with esx. For server, with a full default install (plus
likewise, vmtools, snmpd, vim, and some other defaults) it fits snugly
at 800mb on all lvm's. I split the 4gb disk hard provision /boot now to
a 200mb (used to 100mb, upgrades kill this) and rest as a lvm pv,
splitting it 300mb to /var/log, rest to root (or whatever your app
requires). Works quite dandy for most purpose-built systems, and "thin"
as far as things go in modern times.
This is a basic production ubu 10.04 server install with procmail for
smtp relay:
UC\mb@relay0:~$ df -kh
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/vg0-root 2.2G 757M 1.4G 36% /
none 181M 176K 181M 1% /dev
none 186M 0 186M 0% /dev/shm
none 186M 56K 186M 1% /var/run
none 186M 0 186M 0% /var/lock
none 186M 0 186M 0% /lib/init/rw
/dev/sda1 89M 16M 68M 19% /boot
/dev/mapper/vg0-varlog
276M 13M 248M 5% /var/log
I'll add /media/ext0 for bulk data stores or /opt/application0 for more
purpose-built storage and replication.
Desktop images I manage much differently, usually 8g or 16g systems
virtual machine disk as a base, or whatever disk. I break down
partition structure more delicately with more lv's comprising the fs,
but I always leave space to lvextend it larger if needed (/var comes to
mind with dist-upgrades needing sometimes 1.2g of free space and
overly-chatty logs). Allocate free space with lvextend where necessary
as you learn.
A heavily-used/modified/upgraded (i.e. my desktop rig) base uses very
little still imho:
mb@host:~$ df -kh
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/vg0-root 2.0G 1.3G 711M 64% /
udev 3.9G 4.0K 3.9G 1% /dev
tmpfs 3.9G 9.1M 3.9G 1% /tmp
tmpfs 1.6G 1000K 1.6G 1% /run
none 5.0M 0 5.0M 0% /run/lock
none 3.9G 1.4M 3.9G 1% /run/shm
/dev/md/boot 97M 61M 32M 67% /boot
/dev/mapper/vg0-var 2.5G 1.3G 1.2G 54% /var
/dev/mapper/vg0-usr 10G 5.0G 4.6G 52% /usr
These are personally large spaces that usually replicate/symlink
generously between them and nfs network storage (read: important stuff):
/dev/mapper/vg0-ext0 32G 16G 15G 53% /media/ext0
/dev/mapper/vg0-home 32G 28G 3.1G 90% /home
Keeps the base disposable for the most part. Rest is essentially where
you dump your "stuff". Only other thing I backup is the /etc
directories for posterity (and my crazy xorg configs).
Still pretty "thin" in my book as far as an os, especially when win7/2k8
wants 20-25g just to install the bloody pig. XP needed at least 8gb to
run/grow any, so 8g is fair to linux desktop, which it can make much
more use of out of box.
BTRFS is basically my eventual hope to reduce complication between
ssd/trim, md, luks, lvm, and traditional fs' to make use of space
effectively.
-mb
On 03/06/2012 12:02 PM, keith smith wrote:
I'm curious. What is your old reliable?
I agree with bloat. Seems Linux just keeps on growing. I had not
pondered this much, except recently when I replace a Fedora Core 2
server with CentOS 6. I ran the Fedora box for 5 years as a local LAMP
dev box.
I wonder if there is a "thin" Linux. Of course right out of the box. I
have no time to optimize Linux or M$.
I have to upgrade occasionally since I am building apps that run on a
relatively recent release.
I sometime think of the good old days when Linux fit on a handful of
1.44MB micro floppies. It now comes on a handful of CD's or a DVD.
------------------------
Keith Smith
--- On *Tue, 3/6/12, [email protected] /<[email protected]>/* wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Seeking a concise Linux installation checklist
To: "Main PLUG discussion list" <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, March 6, 2012, 10:13 AM
Eric Shubes wrote, in part:
> ok to ... dual boot XP/Linux, running VBox on Linux
> Then you introduced dual booting multiple linux distros along
with XP.
> Not a good idea in this day and age.
> I think your objective should be to get to the point of having a
single
> linux boot, with VBox running whatever other OSs you want from there,
> including XP. Forget about dual booting unless it's absolutely
necessary
> to get from here to there.
[snipped]
Thanks Eric. I certainly do always trust your counsel.
Since I need to be unavailable much of the time until May, I'll have to
come back to this later. But I just wanted to explain why I had proposed
the multiple boot scenario.
I really do detest xp and everything M$ and I rarely use it; however,
since it is on the system and I have way more HD space than I need, I
thought I might just leave it there and make the proposed triple boot to
be able to access two different Linux installations for this reason:
Every time I have ever "updated" a Linux distro, it has caused problems,
and it seems to me that the newer Linux distros have become more
bloatware
and a whole lot less reliable than my "old reliable" system which I
*never* update and which *never* fails to perform flawlessly
(although it
does have some obvious limitations). Therefore, I would like to install
that "old reliable" system as one of two Linux options.
In the second Linux installation, I hope to install VirtualBox with
xp as
a virtual option. But it is because I am apprehensive because of my
universal and uniform past experience with newer distros that I
would like
to keep that "fall-back" option of "old reliable." Thus the triple-boot
notion.
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected]
</mc/[email protected]>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
