Re: Partitioning scheme for file/mail server
- From: Nix <nix-razor-pit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:13:41 +0100
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Alex Butcher announced authoritatively:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:36:03 +0000, Ben Tisdall wrote:
>> / 40GB
>
> Why? 2GB is plenty:
>
> $ df -k
> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/hde2 2071416 977856 988336 50% /
>
> Best to create seperate partitions for /usr, /tmp, /home and /var.
If you're doing that, well, 500Mb is plenty. Hell, even less is. I'm
using 200Mb here, and I can struggle along with 50Mb as long as I
don't need too many simultaneously-present kernels.
> These days, make swap 2x the maximum amount of memory that can be fitted
> to the motherboard. Keeps life easy. If you're using Linux software RAID
> to perform the mirroring between partitions, then swap can be configured
> to use the two matching swap partitions round-robin, so you'd only need
> 1xmax memory on each disc.
It's trivial to do that even if you don't use RAID, viz
/dev/disks/swap0 swap swap defaults,pri=1 0 0
/dev/disks/swap1 swap swap defaults,pri=1 0 0
(This system uses LVM, but not RAID, and you don't need LVM for this,
either.)
If you add more swap on-the-fly on a disk that's already got swap on it,
use a lower priority (i.e., 0) for the new swap so that the kernel doesn't
try to use it until the existing swap is already full. This should keep
inter-swap-area head movement down until you're really short of memory.
>> As for the rest, I would really like to use it flexibly between /home and
>> say, /mnt/shared-data but I'm not sure how best to do this. Would making
>> /home a symlink to /mnt/shared-data/home be ok or is there a better way?
>
> As for the rest, get with the 21st century and use LVM :-). That way you
> can dynamically shuffle space from unallocated space and one filesystem to
> another if-and-when you need it. I'd advise you to take a rough stab at
> getting the proportions right (e.g. based on current usage), but leave
> ~50% unallocated for now. When you expand a filesystem, do it in large
> chunks (say, 10-20GB or more).
Agreed --- although of course the chunk size you choose to expand in
depends on how much disk space you have in total; the chunk size you
suggest is more than the total disk space on one of my machines, and
entirely reasonable for another of them ;)
I'd hold off putting / on LVM, though, because it means you have to boot
using an initrd, and if that breaks for whatever reason then fixing
things is deeply annoying and fiddly. At least if / is unadorned (or at
best only a mirrored RAID partition) then you can do a single-user boot
even if nothing is working but the kernel and a statically linked
busybox (and it's *hard* to break a statically linked busybox).
--
`"Gun-wielding recluse gunned down by local police" isn't the epitaph
I want. I am hoping for "Witnesses reported the sound up to two hundred
kilometers away" or "Last body part finally located".' --- James Nicoll
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Partitioning scheme for file/mail server
- From: Alex Butcher
- Re: Partitioning scheme for file/mail server
- References:
- Partitioning scheme for file/mail server
- From: Ben Tisdall
- Re: Partitioning scheme for file/mail server
- From: Alex Butcher
- Partitioning scheme for file/mail server
- Prev by Date: Re: Partitioning scheme for file/mail server
- Next by Date: Re: Partitioning scheme for file/mail server
- Previous by thread: Re: Partitioning scheme for file/mail server
- Next by thread: Re: Partitioning scheme for file/mail server
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
