Le 9 août 2014 à 06:04, Gary Dale <garyd...@torfree.net> a écrit :
> On 08/08/14 06:14 AM, B. M. wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> While I'm waiting for the components of my new machine (testing/jessie) >> I'm thinking about the optimal partitioning scheme which should last for the >> next 10 years :-) >> >> The system looks like: >> Haswell 3.4 GHz >> 8 GB RAM (later upgradeable up to 32 GB) >> 250 GB SSD >> 2 TB HDD >> >> What do you think about the following: >> >> === SSD: === >> /boot unencrypted, 300 MB >> / ext4, encrypted, 25-30 GB >> /home ext4, encrypted, keyfile, 220-225 GB >> User data for two users >> >> >> === HDD (in this order for performance reasons): === >> /var HDD, ext4, encrypted, keyfile, 25 GB >> It's so large because I want to add a directory /var/src below /var >> to compile a kernel on the HDD if necessary >> >> /databases HDD, ext4, encrypted, keyfile, barrier=0, 10 GB >> Used for the db's of digikam (1 user), akonadi and amarok >> (2 users each) >> >> swap HDD, swapfs, encrypted, 5 GB (not hibernation) >> >> /video HDD, btrfs, 560 GB >> Subvolumes: >> /video/editing >> /video/series >> => for video editing or series, no backup, not encrypted >> >> /data HDD, btrfs, encrypted, keyfile, RAID1 (2 x 700 GB). >> With subvolumes for digikam archive, movie archive and music >> >> >> What do you think (sizes, file systems, number of partitions, ...)? >> Is it still a good idea to put /var on an HDD, not a SSD? >> Video editing is currently not required, it's more like an option for the >> future (1y or so) and might require a second HDD (source and target >> drive for rendering to increase r/w performance). >> To keep it simple and usable I'll use keyfiles for all partitions except >> /. >> >> Thanks for your inputs and all the best. > Everyone has their own preferences on this but I actually have several > machines with a very similar setup. The major difference is that I use RAID > rather than single mechanical disks. > > My preference is to use the SSD for /, with an area left for for the GUID > boot. > > I partition the larger drive/array as a single partition and mount it as > /home. I've never really seen a need to engage in the multiple partitions > that some people seem to like. You're never likely to fill the / partition > and if you fill the /home with some of your data, then expand the RAID array. > > Some people like LVM but frankly with the good tools Linux has for resizing > partitions, it's rarely needed. > > I don't like the idea of using two partitions on a single HD for RAID, which > seems to be your plan. I'd opt instead to go immediately to RAID 5 with 3 > drives. 1T drives are quite cheap these days so the cost difference isn't > significant over a single 2T. If you want to save money, a 60G SSD is all you > really need for / anyway. > > I'm also not concerned about wear on an SSD. I've been using them for years > and have yet to have one fail. It will happen at some point, but I trust them > more than I trust an HD. However since your SSD isn't in a RAID array, I > wouldn't trust it with anything that can't be recovered with a fresh Linux > install. > Well, actually my idea is to have the a normal, hourly backup on an external /ext4-formatted drive for home and /etc. btrfs for /data in the RAID1 setup is to protect against bit rot (photo & movie archive which should be save for decades...); ontop of that I plan an additional partition for /data on the external drive as well to protect against hardware failure of the internal drive, so the only threat I currently see is a problem of the btrfs fs hurting both the internal RAID1 and the external btrfs. But if I use ext4 for the external /data backup I'm not easily protected against bit rot. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/4071b3ce-a109-4855-97a9-38364975e...@gmx.ch
