I always used to say you should use smaller partitions for backups/restores, cause utilities like dump etc. work on filesystems and not directories. That way if you need to restore something you can restore your 20 gig partition which is much quicker than restoring a 160 gig partition.
I think that viewpoint is now more or less obsolete, but I thought I'd mention it. On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 06:58:34AM -0800, thorsten Sideb0ard wrote: > > Hey, > > does anyone have any experiences/storys in regards to large drives and how > best to partition them. > > I've built up a few new servers and have installed 160GB drives in them. > I've formatted them with ext3, and just have one large partition on it. > When i formatted it, i didn't specify a block size and it gave me all > default values. > > Here's the output: > > [root@griffin root]# mkfs -t ext2 -j /dev/hda1 > mke2fs 1.26 (3-Feb-2002) > Filesystem label= > OS type: Linux > Block size=4096 (log=2) > Fragment size=4096 (log=2) > 20021248 inodes, 40019915 blocks > 2000995 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user > First data block=0 > 1222 block groups > 32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group > 16384 inodes per group > Superblock backups stored on blocks: > 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, > 2654208, 4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 20480000, 23887872 > Writing inode tables: done > Creating journal (8192 blocks): done > Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done > This filesystem will be automatically checked every 34 mounts or > 180 days, whichever comes first. Use tune2fs -c or -i to override. > > > So, it looks like block size of 4k which sounds fine to me, not any > wasteage. and the system sees the full size of the partition fine. > So my questions are, are there any limitations i will run into with > inodes [2 million sounds fine i think], any other area where resources are > being wasted or could be better utilized, or just anything i should be > taking into consideration that i'm not? > Arguments for and against one big partition as opposed to splitting it up? > One thing i should probably also mention. I have a separate 80GB drive for > the system files, which is partitioned into /, swap, /usr/local, /var and > /tmp, so the 160GB drive in question is purely for data storage, so no > need to worry about temp files or logs. > > One of the problems i've discovered so far, is the automatic disk check > which took forever, but thats just due to the size of the disk, as opposed > to the size of the partition i believe. > > any advice muchly appreciated. > > cheers, > thorsten > > > -- > ......................... > : highpointlowlife.com : > : 8bitrecs.com : > : tsktskrecords.com : > :::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > _______________________________________________ > Bits mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.sugoi.org/mailman/listinfo/bits -- ___________________________________________________________________ P a u l [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Bits mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sugoi.org/mailman/listinfo/bits
