Le 9 août 2014 à 05:44, Patrick Bartek <nemomm...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2014, 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 :-) > > 10 years might be an overly optimistic expectation unless you plan on > upgrading a lot. 7 years is more realistic otherwise. > > My current desktop system -- built Dec 2006 -- is pushing 8 years for > the oldest parts. but it's been upgraded numerous times over those 8 > years: 3 CPUs (single to dual to quad-core, all 3.0 GHz), more RAM (2 to > 4 to 8 GB), 3 graphics cards, added a new HD just a couple months ago > and transferred OS to it -- original one is still working and in the > case, just not being used; 4 monitors, 3 keyboards, 3 mouses, 4 > operating systems (Fedora 6, 9, 12 and Wheezy, all 64-bit), and 2 > motherboards. Original one bit-the-dust after 3 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 > > I wouldn't put /home on the SSD. With all the writes involved, > better to put it on a spinning disk. And by doing that, you don't need > such a huge SSD. 64 to 100GB will more than do with just /boot and / > on it. Well, my plan is to put /home on it, but without all database-related stuff (e.g. digikam db) and iceweasel gets a cache size of 0. Maybe I also move the downloads directory to the HDD together with one for virtual machines. I don't think that there is much left which is written so often, but maybe I'm wrong? > >> >> === 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) > > Believe or not, I'd put swap on the SSD for speed. It won't be used all > that often, so there won't be excessive writes. My 8GB system rarely > uses it, and as a pro photographer, I batch process hundreds of images > each 16 to 24 MB at time on an almost daily basis. Is definitely worth to consider, thanks. > >> >> /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 > > I wouldn't use btrfs. It's not ready for primetime, yet. Maybe, in a > few years. Stick with ext4. It's proven and rock solid. If you want > to "play" with brtfs, okay, but don't put any important files on it. > > Also ... You're RAID 1-ing two partitions on the SAME physical drive? > For "auto-backup," I assume? Bad idea. If your one hard drive fails, > both those RAIDed partitions are toast. Put one of those partitions on > another HD. > > You might also look into using LVM instead of traditional > partitioning, particularly if you plan on adding more hard drives. OK, I didn't mention that before, but my complete setup additionally includes an external backup drive (of course) with hourly backups of /etc and /home on one partition and a large second partition for the backup of /data, so for /data I have the btrfs RAID1 internally on the same drive which protects against bit rot plus one external partition (so without RAID-redundancy) to protect against hardware failure. I'm unsure if I should stick with ext4 for the external backup because btrfs's integrated check summing is so appealing (again the bit rot problem), but then there would still be the risk of fs failures due to its experimental state - but as far as I found out so far, btrfs should be ready as long as one doesn't use snapshots and RAID 5+; its basic functionality seems to be safe. Currently I'm using LVM, but I'd like to get rid of this additional complexity and keep things relatively simple. Having a RAID1 on two partitions on the same disk is bad for r/w performance, that's clear, but it's only for my photo archive which I don't access so often (and writes are even less frequent); the working part would reside inside /home, i.e. on the SSD (ext4). The alternative would be to put another HDD in the machine and set it up as a RAID, but then my wife might complain about the additional noise... Thanks a lot and all the best. -- 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/04562d07-95a7-448f-bf1c-5992f3907...@gmx.ch
