On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 06:40 -0700, Rich Shepard wrote: > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Derek Loree wrote: > > > I think it is always better (if possible) to use the same partition scheme > > on all computers that I build. It doesn't really matter what that scheme > > is, consistency is what works over the long run. > > Derek, > > When I first partitioned a hard drive for linux in 1997 I read many > suggestions that multiple partitions were better than one contiguous / > partition. Now I've been told that the speed of current SATA drives makes > the difference moot. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. > > My current partition scheme is this: > > /dev/hda3 swap > /dev/hda1 / > /dev/hda10 /tmp > /dev/hda11 /vm > /dev/hda12 /data1 > /dev/hda13 /data2 > /dev/hda2 /boot > /dev/hda5 /home > /dev/hda6 /usr > /dev/hda7 /usr/local > /dev/hda8 /opt > /dev/hda9 /var > > I am open to keeping it this way, using only /, /tmp, and swap, or any > other alternative.
The problem with this sort of partition scheme is the wasted disk space. Each and every partition will have empty space that can not be accessed easily by other partitions (you can get creative with sim-links, but it get messy). There are two reasons that I can think of for multiple partitions, placement of the partition on the faster part of the drive and containment of a run-away process. For these reasons, I compromise by limiting the number of partitions to 4. Swap and / go at the beginning of the drive where it is supposed to be fastest, /var gets its own partition to contain run-away log files or nasty overflowing in-boxes, and the rest of the drive is for /home. If you make the / partition about 40 Gigs, there will be plenty of room for /tmp. The size of /var depends on the machines function, smaller for workstation, larger for email server. -- Derek Loree _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
