Hello,
> > I decided to partition my hard disk into:
> > /boot 50MB
> > /home 50MB (maybe more)
> > /root 50MB
> > /var 150MB (maybe more)
> > /usr 700MB
> > /etc 50MB
> > /swap 128MB
> > /dos 200MB
> > /tmp 50MB
> > ---------------------
> > Sum. 1428MB -> rest: 270MB for ???
> >
> >Would this be a good idea? Any criticism welcome!!!
Probably better to design it by starting out with everything in one big
partition ("/") and saying *why* you want things separate for each one.
As others have pointed out, having many partitions wastes space, because you
need to leave a bit to spare in each one separately. Perhaps more importantly,
it'll end up making things *messy* rather than organized, because when you run
out of space on one of them (and you will), you'll start putting things where
they don't belong, soft-linking them all over the place.
On my disk, the only thing I have separate is the swap partition.
That said, here's the things you might reasonably want to make separate:
Most likely:
swap space - much more efficient
/boot - if your disk is over 1023 cylinders and you boot with LILO
Maybe:
/tmp, /var, /home - try & stop runaway processes (either 3 partitions or 1)
/usr - to be mounted read-only
Probably not:
/etc - some of the files are needed during boot
/bin, /sbin, /lib - programs needed for boot and minimal admin
/root - too small to worry about
You can, of course, divide it finer - eg have a partition for /var/spool to
guard against mailbombs, but leave the rest of /var on the root partition.
> Usually, when you see a system with a bunch of mount points, it's because
> there's more than one disk. Using 4 2GB drives is better than one 8GB
> drive because:
>
> 1. if one drive goes down, you only lose the data on that one drive,
> not the other 3.
> 2. there are 4 I/O paths for data (i.e. you can read from more than
> one disk simultaneously) which reduces I/O wait times and speeds up
> the system.
And a couple of others:
3. cheaper
4. you can do RAID if you like
HTH
Jiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
