Re: Comments on proposed partitioning scheme
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 23:29:28 +0200 Aniruddha mailingdotl...@gmail.com wrote: Here's my opinion: ... * I think encryption is not well suited for a desktop system, unless you have some special need for it (e.g. laptop). It creates extra overhead, meaning it is a lot slower then a normal file system + it makes disaster recovery more difficult. I'm not sure that an encrypted filesystem is really a lot slower than a normal file system on modern HW. Do you have benchmarks or references? Celejar -- foffl.sourceforge.net - Feeds OFFLine, an offline RSS/Atom aggregator mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100926150245.09629378.cele...@gmail.com
Re: Comments on proposed partitioning scheme
Le 26/09/2010 21:02, Celejar wrote: On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 23:29:28 +0200 Aniruddha mailingdotl...@gmail.com wrote: Here's my opinion: ... * I think encryption is not well suited for a desktop system, unless you have some special need for it (e.g. laptop). It creates extra overhead, meaning it is a lot slower then a normal file system + it makes disaster recovery more difficult. I'm not sure that an encrypted filesystem is really a lot slower than a normal file system on modern HW. Do you have benchmarks or references? Celejar Phoronix.com has some tests on a low specs Eee and a high end ThinkPad W510 : http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=intel_atom_disknum=1 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_maverick_encryptionnum=1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c9faa0e.4070...@googlemail.com
Comments on proposed partitioning scheme
I'm a new GNU/Linux user. I've recently received a desktop with lots of disk space and I've been thinking about how to use it effectively. It will contain lots of multimedia files, and later I want to set up mail web servers on it, primarily for edification rather than production, so these are my constraints while I planned the scheme. Any comments on whether I'll regret doing the following would be appreciated since I'm led to believe that the encryption phase of big disks can take a very long time if you do it properly (so I'd rather minimise passes due to stupidity :p). I have two 80GB disks, which will hold my system files. I have two 500GB disks which will be my home drive. I plan to mirror both sets of disks using RAID1. My mirrored 80GB disks will contain the following, the format of my examples is mount_point (size) [options] /boot (1 GB) [unencrypted, RAID1] / (5 GB) [encrypted, RAID1] /var (20 GB) [encrypted, RAID1] /tmp (500 MB) [encrypted, RAID1] /usr (rest of space) [encrypted, RAID1] swap (4 GB) [encrypted] (I have 4 GB of RAM) My mirrored 500GB with contain the following, /home (500GB) [encrypted, RAID1] Do you think this is a silly/decent scheme? Am I being naive about anything? Your comments much appreciated. Thanks a lot for your time, -- Charlie Turner Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktik9pgwlte4ckyxvtgdjmcv95umj3qzfby=hh...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Comments on proposed partitioning scheme
Here's my opinion: * I wouldn't use raid for a desktop system but a backup program such as rsnapshot. You can mirror each disk this way, the main advantage is that when you throw something away by accident it is still there in your backup while with raid you would have lost it. Raid (and lvm) can make disaster recovery more difficult * I think encryption is not well suited for a desktop system, unless you have some special need for it (e.g. laptop). It creates extra overhead, meaning it is a lot slower then a normal file system + it makes disaster recovery more difficult. * Furthermore I prefer a simple partion scheme: mine is: /dev/sda1 swap 1 GB /dev/sda2 / 100 GB /dev/sda3 /home 889 GB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimjdx-emxnvoxvueamab2x0seazbugrcssry...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Comments on proposed partitioning scheme
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:05:50 +0100 Charles Turner lookatmymanbrea...@gmail.com wrote: I have two 80GB disks, which will hold my system files. I have two 500GB disks which will be my home drive. I plan to mirror both sets of disks using RAID1. My mirrored 80GB disks will contain the following, the format of my examples is mount_point (size) [options] /boot (1 GB) [unencrypted, RAID1] Only really needs to be about 100MB, 300meg if you need room for loads of kernels (I have the stock debian one and a custom built one and my /boot is only 30.9MB) / (5 GB) [encrypted, RAID1] /var (20 GB) [encrypted, RAID1] /tmp (500 MB) [encrypted, RAID1] /usr (rest of space) [encrypted, RAID1] swap (4 GB) [encrypted] (I have 4 GB of RAM) My mirrored 500GB with contain the following, /home (500GB) [encrypted, RAID1] Do you think this is a silly/decent scheme? Am I being naive about anything? Your comments much appreciated. If you want such a complex set-up, try using LVM [1]. Myself, I would just have 80gig hdd's in raid 1 /boot 500meg / Rest 500gig HDD's /home Thanks a lot for your time, [1]http://wiki.debian.org/LVM -- Regards, Angus Hedger Debian GNU/Linux User PGP Public Key 0xEE6A4B97 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
