Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
IMHO you could just use the rest of the disk (after the /boot [hda1] and swap [hda2]), but if you intend to get a /home (or anything), I usually use 10GB for / just in case (still at 50%, but you never know). I got two 40GB disks however, if I were you (and I'm not, so, you can just disconsider what I'll say), I would put 20GB for the system, so you'll probably never run out of space... On 2/16/06, Izar Ilun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: I'm installing Gentoo and I'd like you to suggest me how much disc space I should use for /. My machine is Pentium4, 1GB RAM, 200 GB HD ATA It's a desktop machine with Gentoo as the only and exclusive OS. Will run KDE. Amarok, OpenOffice, firefox Thanx! -- Daniel da Veiga Computer Operator - RS - Brazil -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V- PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list Do i not understand why needs swap, if have 1GB of RAM?
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
joaoemanuel1981 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do i not understand why needs swap, if have 1GB of RAM? 1. because if you have 200GB disk, cutting 1 or 2GB for swap does not matter 2. because someone told me some apps want to allocate swap no matter how ram you have (I think it was someone from hp-ux support, but I'm not sure if this is true for linux) 3. because it is always better to have too much ram/swap then too little 4. because if you do not set up swap, but need it later, it will not be so easy to create it, if you partition all disk and leave no space left 5. because it is a good *nix habit! :-) Jarry -- Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko! Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
There are too damn many myths about swap out there. Like this one: Always configure twice as much swap as you have ram. Why? Why would I need more swap if I increased my ram? You need at least a little bit of swap for peak memory usage. Let's look at real numbers. Say, I am a bit low of ram for today's computers. I have 256MB ram. For peak usage, I add 128MB swap. I open so many applications/documents that the box starts swapping out 20MB. Sure, without swap space, I wouldn't have been able to open the last document. But nothing makes me stop there. I can as well run out of swap. The rule I always used (and do use) is twice ram, up to one gig of ram. Pretty much after that, I just do a gig of swap, and monitor it for growth. If my swap goes up AT ALL, I examine the typical workload on the box and consider adding ram. Ram may be more expensive than disk, but at less than $100 or so per gig, it's pretty cheap. I use swap as a safety net, allowing me enough time to react if something goes nuts or leaks. If you have 2GB of ram and 2GB of swap your total available memory is 4GB. If you need more you have to add either ram or swap. What you add is your choice based on your needs for speed and the money you are willing to spend on memory. That's it. End of rant. Uwe -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Uwe Thiem wrote: 3. because it is always better to have too much ram/swap then too little Nnnnot always. There are circumstances when you do not want swap at all. This is never true. Swap is *always* called for, and for a good reason. Your example of having a real-time responsive app requiring memory residence is a determining factor of how much physical memory you'll need to keep the app resident. But the truth of the matter is this will not be your only app running on the system. Throw some big memory hogs into play, i.e. an active X session running locally and that remote X session you've started from work, and pretty soon you can find yourself eating up that 1gb that you thought would be fine. Except that since you did not have any swap enabled, once you reach the 1gb limit, processes start failing. You find yourself unable to log into the box because there's not enough memory to spawn a new shell. You're forced to hard-boot the system and hope that the HD caches were flushed to the disk before you hit the reset button. Having swap is just another manner of safe-guarding your system. Once you breach the physical limit, there's always swap to fall back on. Sure all of your apps will suffer while swapping occurs, but at least you stand a chance of cleaning up the situation w/o facing the hard reboot option. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thursday 23 February 2006 19:25, Uwe Thiem wrote: End of rant. I think you should read this article http://rudd-o.com/archives/2006/01/11/why-swap-is-good-even-with-tons-of-ram/ I don't know about you but since I started using an archck kernel, I have always seen my system actually using swap. The swap prefetch patch seems to be working here and I don't mind at all. In fact it makes my system much more responsive. Here is the current free -m report. $ free -m total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 495485 9 0 61131 -/+ buffers/cache:293202 Swap: 768241526 Now imagine that if I didn't have any swap space, that 241MB would have either been eaten up from my RAM or those files would never have been cached. In first scenario, it would reduce the capability of my system to cache the important files in RAM b'cos it is already full with not-so-important files, while in the latter case the Disk IO on my system will increase whenever I needed those not-so-important files. What ever your choice might be, I personally choose free RAM for better caching of files + lesser Disk IO, even if that means spending 768MB of HDD space. -- Regards, Abhay pgpugWBJYAuql.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On 2/23/06, Dave Nebinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is never true. Swap is *always* called for, and for a good reason. No, it isn't. For my single-user laptop with 2G of RAM, I actually prefer that the OOM kill any runaway process that is gobbling up RAM. My laptop disk (even at 7200rpm) is too damn slow for swap to be at all useful. The system _will_ be dead until swap is exhausted and the OOM kicks in anyway. The only reason I have a swap partition at all is for suspend2 hibernation. Your example of having a real-time responsive app requiring memory residence is a determining factor of how much physical memory you'll need to keep the app resident. But the truth of the matter is this will not be your only app running on the system. Throw some big memory hogs into play, i.e. an active X session running locally and that remote X session you've started from work, and pretty soon you can find yourself eating up that 1gb that you thought would be fine. No one would ever place a real-time responsive app on a desktop system. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Dave Nebinger wrote: You've got 2gb ram, yet you still need swap for hibernation. No, he doesn't. suspend2 could also write the memory to a file when hibernating. That said, I'd find it rather useless to write to a plain normal file, as you need to keep the space available anyway. And with swap, you might at least make somewhat use of that wasted space. Alexander Skwar -- I'd horsewhip you if I had a horse. Ö -- Groucho Marx -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:46:57 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: If partition A runs out of space while partition B has plenty, Then you made B too large, which is the main cause of the problem. Of course, but if your needs change, that's the situation you find yourself in, as I did recently. Yes, this might happen. How often does it, though? you have to shrink B's filesystem before you can add space to A. That's time consuming, especially if B uses XFS. What's so special about XFS? The fact that there's no shrinker? Yes, so a matter of seconds turns into the time it takes to backup, Shrinking is never a matter of seconds :) Not with reiserfs and especially not with ext2/ext3. But with those filesystems, shrinking is at least possible. I've used complex partition layouts in the past and have found that, as with most things, KISS is the best approach. Yep. Alexander Skwar -- It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:59:44 -0600, Zac Slade wrote: But far more chance of running out of space on /usr, /var or /opt while one of the others has plenty free. I prefer to have these three on the same partition for a desktop, but separate from /. I use the bind option to mount /var and /opt on /usr/var and /usr/opt Good god man! This is about as kludgy as they come. Sure it gets the job done, but this is EXACTLY what LVM was invented for. This is not about partitions but filesystems. Partitions are hard (relatively) to resize. However, logical volumes are not. You can increase them when they are full, or reduce their size when you need to distribute disk space to other places. LVs are dead easy to resize, reducing the size of a filesystem is not always that easy, or even possible. Also consider the case where you completely fill up your 200GB drive. What then? Buy a new drive and migrate data from /home or /usr to the new disk and mount that, then reclaim the partition for some other fs etc. You have the migration of data and the inflexibility of partitions to resize. If you use LVM in the same case you just add the new disk to your volume group increase any logical volumes that are in need of more space and resize the filesystem. I am using LVM, where did I say I wasn't? If I run out of space and add a new disk, I can easily add a new physical volume to the volume group and resize the partitions. How many directories I keep on each partition has absolutely nothing to do with this. I want to have / on a small partition, so everything else can go on RAID and LVM, but why should that force me to have separate filesystems for /usr, /var and /opt if I don't want them? -- Neil Bothwick I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:52:17 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: Then you made B too large, which is the main cause of the problem. Of course, but if your needs change, that's the situation you find yourself in, as I did recently. Yes, this might happen. How often does it, though? Twice last year, how many times is acceptable? What's so special about XFS? The fact that there's no shrinker? Yes, so a matter of seconds turns into the time it takes to backup, Shrinking is never a matter of seconds :) Not with reiserfs and especially not with ext2/ext3. But with those filesystems, shrinking is at least possible. OK, quite a few seconds :) -- Neil Bothwick Strike any user to continue signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Friday 17 February 2006 07:33, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:40, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: Izar Ilun wrote: Why should he make /tmp noexec, Security precaution. if you have 10+ users with access to the box. But a workstation, without even sshd running, it is not needed. needed - What's needed, anyway? And hey, why should /tmp noexec save you from anything? Because it does. so? how? Think, you might find out. What does noexec do, hm? Even *you* might find out... Well... If I think about it... No, you're too clueless to find out. Hint 1: noexec nowadays makes it impossible to execute programs stored on that filesystem. I know, but it won't save you from anything. After a user got in, he is a user. And every user has a place with write permission (if he is user apache/httpd he has lots of places, where he can store code). Outside of /tmp. You see - it doesn't help you anything. Hint 2: /tmp (and /var/tmp) are (hopefully) the only places where everybody can write. an attacker does not need a place, where everybody can write. He just needs SOME place, where he can write - like the home-directory of the user he just corrumpted. Also, he can disrupt your system, by just filling up /tmp. No code needed for that. If someone is able to break into your box, he can build his tools in /home or /var/tmp or somewhere else. No need for /tmp. Wrong again. If tmp is the only place somebody can write, then it might save you (and it DID save my ass more than once now). since /tmp is not the only place where someone can write (/var/tmp anyone?) True. /var/tmp is a link to /tmp on my system. And if not, /var/tmp could also easily be a seperate fs. and another partition ..,. it won't help you much. That's of course wrong again. Ah. Please explain how you mount /tmp noexec and /usr readonly. I don't because it is wasted effort. Of course it's not. yes it is. Jaja. Just because you've got problems, it doesn't mean that there ARE problems. it is wasted: if he has so many rights, that he could write to /usr, he has enough rights to remount it. and /tmp is not needed, as soon as you have breaken into the box. Plus, a full /tmp and /var will disrupt services and make reboot (almost) impossible. So, noexec and ro /usr will save you from nothing. No, it's not. Write permissions don't mean, that somebody is root. in my /usr, yes it does. ;) yes really, you have to remount /usr everytime you update something. Jaja. You know, your exaggerations become boring... because it is true? show me, how do you update something residing in /usr without remounting. a) /tmp is cleaned during boot - so this won't happen anyway. /tmp ios cleaned so late, that it is too late, is both are totally full. b) Don't let it happen in the first place. you can not tell an attacker what not to do. c) Boot a rescue system like Knoppix and clean /tmp. yeah! but why boot from a boot-cd, if you don't have to? (hint: /tmp not on its own, small partition) d) In reality, I NEVER had it happen that /tmp or /var/tmp ran out of space. What happened more often is that /var ran out of space, because of the logs in /var/log. you have never used gimp, did you? I have seen gimp filling up a 5GB /tmp. I see. Strange thing is, that about every server and workstation I've seen more or less contradicts what you say. if you have 20+ users on each of them, and every single one is a little cracker in disguisse, it may make sense, but for a single user box? Why are you asking? because you are the one starting with 'server' and 'workstations' Correct. So what? Why are you asking? and the OP never talked about one or the other. His system MUST be the one or the other. nope, there is a third category: personal computer (also called home computer). If every partition takes a second, it will be very noticable. Hardly. (Notice that I'm not saying No.) if mounting becomes the major 'hold up' in your booting process, it becomes VERY noticable. Jaja. Do you actually expect to be taken seriously? not from you. From thois mailing list I learnt, that if someone is not on your side, the person is wrong. I have been there, I doubt that. Why should I lie? I had 3 ibm harddisks 1x10Gb,2x40gb one seagate 20gb and all and everything on its own partition. And it was hell after a while. More harddisks=bigger chance that one of them dies. True. So? What does this have to do with the fact, that the available hd's are too small? Just as a reminder -
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On 2/17/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 17 February 2006 07:33, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:40, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: Are you two done with your pissing match yet? You've both made your points already, you are obviously not going to convince the other of anything, and this whole I'm right; no I'M RIGHT, NO YOUR WRONG AND I'M RIGHT thread is getting really boring. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Friday 17 February 2006 07:33, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:40, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: Izar Ilun wrote: Why should he make /tmp noexec, Security precaution. if you have 10+ users with access to the box. But a workstation, without even sshd running, it is not needed. needed - What's needed, anyway? And hey, why should /tmp noexec save you from anything? Because it does. so? how? Think, you might find out. What does noexec do, hm? Even *you* might find out... Well... If I think about it... No, you're too clueless to find out. Hint 1: noexec nowadays makes it impossible to execute programs stored on that filesystem. I know, Obviously not. but it won't save you from anything. It does. Like I said. After a user got in, Then it is too late. noexec can save you exactly here. he is a user. And every user has a place with write permission (if he is user apache/httpd he has lots of places, where he can store code). No, he doesn't. Outside of /tmp. Wrong. You see - it doesn't help you anything. I see that you don't know what you're talking about. Hint 2: /tmp (and /var/tmp) are (hopefully) the only places where everybody can write. an attacker does not need a place, where everybody can write. He just needs SOME place, where he can write - like the home-directory of the user he just corrumpted. But to gain access, most attacks need a place to write. Also, he can disrupt your system, by just filling up /tmp. No code needed for that. True. /var/log might be even easier. True. /var/tmp is a link to /tmp on my system. And if not, /var/tmp could also easily be a seperate fs. and another partition ..,. Hint: A link is not a partition. And even if it were another filesystem - who cares? Ah. Please explain how you mount /tmp noexec and /usr readonly. I don't because it is wasted effort. Of course it's not. yes it is. Jaja. Just because you've got problems, it doesn't mean that there ARE problems. it is wasted: if he has so many rights, that he could write to /usr, he has enough rights to remount it. Of course not. Having write permissions doesn't mean that somebody is root. Answer the question. and /tmp is not needed, as soon as you have breaken into the box. Exactly - *as* *soon*. So, noexec and ro /usr will save you from nothing. Wrong. No, it's not. Write permissions don't mean, that somebody is root. in my /usr, yes it does. Fine - who cares? yes really, you have to remount /usr everytime you update something. Jaja. You know, your exaggerations become boring... because it is true? No, it's not. show me, how do you update something residing in /usr without remounting. I don't. c) Boot a rescue system like Knoppix and clean /tmp. yeah! but why boot from a boot-cd, if you don't have to? (hint: Don't let it happen in the first place. /tmp not on its own, small partition) Bad advice. I see. Strange thing is, that about every server and workstation I've seen more or less contradicts what you say. if you have 20+ users on each of them, and every single one is a little cracker in disguisse, it may make sense, but for a single user box? Why are you asking? because you are the one starting with 'server' and 'workstations' Correct. So what? Why are you asking? and the OP never talked about one or the other. His system MUST be the one or the other. nope, Wrong. there is a third category: personal computer (also called home computer). Which is the WS class. If every partition takes a second, it will be very noticable. Hardly. (Notice that I'm not saying No.) if mounting becomes the major 'hold up' in your booting process, it becomes VERY noticable. Jaja. Do you actually expect to be taken seriously? not from you. Fine. From thois mailing list I learnt, that if someone is not on your side, the person is wrong. If you say so. I have been there, I doubt that. Why should I lie? I've got no idea. But you obviously do. I had 3 ibm harddisks 1x10Gb,2x40gb one seagate 20gb and all and everything on its own partition. And it was hell after a while. Because you overdid it: all and everything on its own partition. More harddisks=bigger chance that one of them dies. True. So? What does this have to do with the fact, that the available hd's are too small? Just as a reminder - that's the scenario YOU are talking about. becuase you started with 'buy more harddisks' As you started with not enough space. In your world,
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Richard Fish wrote: On 2/17/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 17 February 2006 07:33, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:40, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: Are you two done with your pissing match yet? Sure. As soon as that moron stops pissing at me, I'll also stop. You've both made your points already, you are obviously not going to convince the other of anything, Exactly. thread is getting really boring. Yes, it is. Alexander Skwar -- All laws are simulations of reality. -- John C. Lilly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Alexander Skwar wrote: Richard Fish wrote: Are you two done with your pissing match yet? Sure. As soon as that moron stops pissing at me, I'll also stop. You lost. If you're so clever, you should stop first. Benno -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Take it to an IRC chat or whatever where the both of you can keep going with this pointless and obviously selfish discussion that is not even close to the OP question and had been discussed a lot over the net, being one of those things where you think you're right and use it, and somebody else don't and use something else, but both of you are SURE that the other is wrong. Do that please so my mail checker won't come with warnings every 10 minutes and save me the time of reading just to see you both keep chatting (yes, it looks exactly as a private chat). Don't get me wrong, you both surely are good pros and probably have helped a lot of people (including me, maybe), but this thread has gone too far and now there's no point in going on, if you want, please don't post to the list, private reply each other ok. -- Daniel da Veiga Computer Operator - RS - Brazil -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V- PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Okay, can we stop with the flamefest, already ? Comments below... Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:40, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Wrong again. If tmp is the only place somebody can write, then it might save you (and it DID save my ass more than once now). since /tmp is not the only place where someone can write (/var/tmp anyone?) Several more indeed. Find comes to the rescue: 120870 drwxrwxrwt 2 root root 40 Jan 10 22:40 /dev/shm 2527440 drwxrwxrwt 2 root root 72 Apr 20 2005 /var/spool/samba Yes, I CAN make files there, as a regular user. if he has enough rights, that you have to worry about rw /usr, he has enough rights, to circumvent ro mounting by remounting. No, that is also not true. Just to satisfy everyone's curiosity, look at what find comes up with: 12100210 drwxrwxr-x 2 lp lp416 Aug 26 16:44 /usr/share/foo2zjs/crd 128775 21 drwxrwsr-x 4 root portage 21968 Feb 8 10:58 /usr/portage/distfiles And I'm _only_ looking at directories now, not even files... yes really, you have to remount /usr everytime you update something. Jaja. You know, your exaggerations become boring... Well, no. It is correct. How do you expect to install something when /usr is mounted RO ? snipped the rest of the ''argument''... Maarten -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Maarten wrote: Okay, can we stop with the flamefest, already ? Certainly. Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:40, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Wrong again. If tmp is the only place somebody can write, then it might save you (and it DID save my ass more than once now). since /tmp is not the only place where someone can write (/var/tmp anyone?) Several more indeed. Find comes to the rescue: 120870 drwxrwxrwt 2 root root 40 Jan 10 22:40 /dev/shm 2527440 drwxrwxrwt 2 root root 72 Apr 20 2005 /var/spool/samba Yes, I CAN make files there, as a regular user. Yep, but you have to find those places. If you cannot execute programs, that will be hard. With /tmp, an attacker knows that he can write there. Granted, /dev/shm is also a rather common place that allows everyone to write to. yes really, you have to remount /usr everytime you update something. Jaja. You know, your exaggerations become boring... Well, no. It is correct. How do you expect to install something when /usr is mounted RO ? Well, you know, his arguments aren't /totally/ wrong. I already said that they are true, in a sense - but I also said, that he's exaggerating very much. Quite obviously, there's no way to write to /usr if it is mounted read only. What I disagree with, is that his notion that a mount -o remount,rw /usr is a lot of work. I also don't disagree that it IS extra work. I'm just saying that it's not MUCH extra work. Alexander Skwar -- (German philosopher) Georg Wilhelm Hegel, on his deathbed, complained, Only one man ever understood me. He fell silent for a while and then added, And he didn't understand me. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
First, I can't really understand why either one of you two won't fully explain your reasonings when going against the other. It helps noone. On 2006-02-17 19:04, Hemmann, Volker Armin uttered these thoughts: On Friday 17 February 2006 07:33, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:40, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: Why should he make /tmp noexec, Security precaution. if you have 10+ users with access to the box. But a workstation, without even sshd running, it is not needed. Of course, if you have a system with _no_ services running (including apache, sshd and so on), or a firewall that blocks every and all incoming connection attempt, then for someone to access /tmp without having physical access to the system (in which case you're pretty much screwed anyhow) is, as far as I know, impossible. This doesn't take into account client-side exploits; because with these the exploiting code has access to whatever resources the user running the client has, including writing to whatever areas that the user has. needed - What's needed, anyway? And hey, why should /tmp noexec save you from anything? Because it does. so? how? Think, you might find out. What does noexec do, hm? Even *you* might find out... Well... If I think about it... No, you're too clueless to find out. Hint 1: noexec nowadays makes it impossible to execute programs stored on that filesystem. I know, but it won't save you from anything. After a user got in, he is a user. And every user has a place with write permission (if he is user apache/httpd he has lots of places, where he can store code). Outside of /tmp. Where? If you've locked down your system tight enough (with file permissions, noexec and so on), I'd guess that the places where things can be stored _and_ be executed from is pretty limited. You see - it doesn't help you anything. I disagre, but if you're under that impression you're not forced to go that route... But I'd advice you from expressing this opinion to people not knowing better. Hint 2: /tmp (and /var/tmp) are (hopefully) the only places where everybody can write. an attacker does not need a place, where everybody can write. He just needs SOME place, where he can write - like the home-directory of the user he just corrumpted. What's to say that the only way to get access to a system is through hacking a user account? Exploits have existed (and probably does, if not in older code) that uses /tmp, and the ability to execute things from that location, to get access to more privileges. So having /tmp mounted as noexec is a good security measure from these kind of exploits. Also, he can disrupt your system, by just filling up /tmp. No code needed for that. And that is the exact reason for keeping writable by all locations on separate filesystems, so that the damage can be limited and not make the entire system unusable if someone decides to fill up a filesystem. If someone is able to break into your box, he can build his tools in /home or /var/tmp or somewhere else. No need for /tmp. Wrong again. If tmp is the only place somebody can write, then it might save you (and it DID save my ass more than once now). since /tmp is not the only place where someone can write (/var/tmp anyone?) True. /var/tmp is a link to /tmp on my system. And if not, /var/tmp could also easily be a seperate fs. and another partition ..,. Not necessarily a partition (by using LVM), but ok. I really don't get why this is a problem if you can easily extend the size of these filesystems, which it is when using LVM or an eqvivalent system. it won't help you much. That's of course wrong again. Ah. Please explain how you mount /tmp noexec and /usr readonly. I don't because it is wasted effort. Of course it's not. yes it is. Jaja. Just because you've got problems, it doesn't mean that there ARE problems. it is wasted: if he has so many rights, that he could write to /usr, he has enough rights to remount it. and /tmp is not needed, as soon as you have breaken into the box. Plus, a full /tmp and /var will disrupt services and make reboot (almost) impossible. So, noexec and ro /usr will save you from nothing. No, it's not. Write permissions don't mean, that somebody is root. in my /usr, yes it does. ;) That's I think your problem with this entire approach. You only see your specific scenario. It's fully possible to have write privileges to /usr without having to be root. yes really, you have to remount /usr everytime you update something. Jaja. You know, your exaggerations become boring... because it is true? show me, how do you update something residing in /usr without
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Friday 17 February 2006 19:38, Alexander Skwar wrote: Richard Fish wrote: On 2/17/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 17 February 2006 07:33, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:40, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: Are you two done with your pissing match yet? Sure. As soon as that moron stops pissing at me, I'll also stop. thank you, you just invalidated everything you ever wrote. Have a nice day. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
the problem is they both have valid points. in this,as in nearly all aspects of unix administration, there is not a single right answer. -Original Message- From: Patrick Börjesson[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2/17/06 4:15:08 PM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.orggentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition? First, I can't really understand why either one of you two won't fully explain your reasonings when going against the other. It helps noone. On 2006-02-17 19:04, Hemmann, Volker Armin uttered these thoughts: On Friday 17 February 2006 07:33, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:40, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: Why should he make /tmp noexec, Security precaution. if you have 10+ users with access to the box. But a workstation, without even sshd running, it is not needed. Of course, if you have a system with _no_ services running (including apache, sshd and so on), or a firewall that blocks every and all incoming connection attempt, then for someone to access /tmp without having physical access to the system (in which case you're pretty much screwed anyhow) is, as far as I know, impossible.=20 This doesn't take into account client-side exploits; because with these the exploiting code has access to whatever resources the user running the client has, including writing to whatever areas that the user has.=20 needed - What's needed, anyway? And hey, why should /tmp noexec save you from anything? Because it does. so? how? Think, you might find out. What does noexec do, hm? Even *you* might find out... Well... If I think about it... No, you're too clueless to find out. Hint 1: noexec nowadays makes it impossible to execute programs stored on that filesystem. =20 I know, but it won't save you from anything. After a user got in, he is a user. And every user has a place with write= =20 permission (if he is user apache/httpd he has lots of places, where he ca= n=20 store code). Outside of /tmp. Where? [Message truncated. Tap Edit-Mark for Download to get remaining portion.] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 22:35 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: Maarten wrote: Okay, can we stop with the flamefest, already ? Certainly. Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:40, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Wrong again. If tmp is the only place somebody can write, then it might save you (and it DID save my ass more than once now). since /tmp is not the only place where someone can write (/var/tmp anyone?) Several more indeed. Find comes to the rescue: 120870 drwxrwxrwt 2 root root 40 Jan 10 22:40 /dev/shm 2527440 drwxrwxrwt 2 root root 72 Apr 20 2005 /var/spool/samba Yes, I CAN make files there, as a regular user. Yep, but you have to find those places. If you cannot execute programs, that will be hard. With /tmp, an attacker knows that he can write there. Granted, /dev/shm is also a rather common place that allows everyone to write to. yes really, you have to remount /usr everytime you update something. Jaja. You know, your exaggerations become boring... Well, no. It is correct. How do you expect to install something when /usr is mounted RO ? Well, you know, his arguments aren't /totally/ wrong. I already said that they are true, in a sense - but I also said, that he's exaggerating very much. Quite obviously, there's no way to write to /usr if it is mounted read only. What I disagree with, is that his notion that a mount -o remount,rw /usr is a lot of work. I also don't disagree that it IS extra work. I'm just saying that it's not MUCH extra work. Alexander Skwar -- (German philosopher) Georg Wilhelm Hegel, on his deathbed, complained, Only one man ever understood me. He fell silent for a while and then added, And he didn't understand me. Hi, Please don't take this post as a signal for more battles. IMHO there are many true facts from both of you. Just a few point, as i have some (limited experience with hardened systems). 1.For 2-3 years using portage-tree in /var/portage, no problems so far, all it takes is a symlink in /usr change in /etc/make.conf file. So i can mount all /usr as 'noexec'. 2.For a really important system (from security point of view) people could use some of Gentoo's hardened projects (grsec,SELinux,RSBAC). i've used 'grsec RSBAC'. Logically grsec is less powerful but easier to manage, and RSBAC (as SELinux) is like a combat tank in a battle during middle age wars (concerning security settings). So there are tools quite for everything, if you wish and know how to use them. No system is perfect but some are almost ;) HTH.Rumen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:35:48 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: Okay, can we stop with the flamefest, already ? Certainly. [snip] Yep, but you have to find those places. If you cannot execute programs, that will be hard. With /tmp, an attacker knows that he can write there. OK, a better question is WILL you stop this? -- Neil Bothwick Loose bits sink chips. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
I'm installing Gentoo and I'd like you to suggest me how much disc space I should use for /. My machine is Pentium4, 1GB RAM, 200 GB HD ATA It's a desktop machine with Gentoo as the only and exclusive OS. Will run KDE. Amarok, OpenOffice, firefox Thanx!
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
40 GB is enough, these are my stats with / partition of 35GB / 200GB Filesystemblocchi di 1K Usati Disponib. Uso% Montato su * /dev/sdb1 34185192 18272204 15912988 54% / * udev518108 396517712 1% /dev /dev/sdb3 14658812 4822604 9836208 33% /home /dev/sdb4148283404 64675480 83607924 44% /mnt/storage shm 518108 0518108 0% /dev/shm Izar Ilun wrote: I'm installing Gentoo and I'd like you to suggest me how much disc space I should use for /. My machine is Pentium4, 1GB RAM, 200 GB HD ATA It's a desktop machine with Gentoo as the only and exclusive OS. Will run KDE. Amarok, OpenOffice, firefox Thanx! ___ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:19:21 +0100, Izar Ilun wrote: I'm installing Gentoo and I'd like you to suggest me how much disc space I should use for /. That depends on what you are going to put on it. Will /usr or /var be on it? They use most of the space. 10GB will be plenty. I have / or a 300MB partition and /usr and /var on an 8GB partition, with plenty of free space. The place you need lots for free space are for portage's $DISTDIR and $PORTAGE_TMPDIR, on /usr and /var by default but you can put them anywhere. -- Neil Bothwick Windows to 486/50 mhz cpu: Don't rush me, don't rush me... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
I say that, It'll be just: - /boot - swap - /home - / (all the rest)On 2/16/06, Ibai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It'll be just: - /boot - swap - /home - / (all the rest)On 2/16/06, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:19:21 +0100, Izar Ilun wrote: I'm installing Gentoo and I'd like you to suggest me how much disc space I should use for /.That depends on what you are going to put on it. Will /usr or /var be on it? They use most of the space. 10GB will be plenty. I have / or a 300MBpartition and /usr and /var on an 8GB partition, with plenty of freespace.The place you need lots for free space are for portage's $DISTDIR and $PORTAGE_TMPDIR, on /usr and /var by default but you can put themanywhere.--Neil BothwickWindows to 486/50 mhz cpu: Don't rush me, don't rush me...
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Izar Ilun wrote: I'm installing Gentoo and I'd like you to suggest me how much disc space I should use for /. 512 MB. The rest should go to filesystems for /var, /usr, /opt and /home. And maybe also additional filesystems for /usr/src and all that Gentoo stuff. Alexander Skwar -- BOFH Excuse #126: it has Intel Inside -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Izar Ilun wrote: I say that, It'll be just: - /boot - swap - /home - / (all the rest) That's not advisable. I'd strongly suggest to create filesystems for /boot, swap, /home, /opt, /usr, /var and / (of course). This way you're more flexible and also a bit safer (not such a high risk of running out of space on /). Further, I'd alsostrongly suggest to use LVM. Alexander Skwar -- BOFH Excuse #126: it has Intel Inside -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:06:12 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: That's not advisable. I'd strongly suggest to create filesystems for /boot, swap, /home, /opt, /usr, /var and / (of course). This way you're more flexible and also a bit safer (not such a high risk of running out of space on /). But far more chance of running out of space on /usr, /var or /opt while one of the others has plenty free. I prefer to have these three on the same partition for a desktop, but separate from /. I use the bind option to mount /var and /opt on /usr/var and /usr/opt $ grep bind /etc/fstab /usr/var /var auto bind 0 0 /usr/opt /opt auto bind 0 0 -- Neil Bothwick After two weeks of dieting, all I lost was two weeks. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
I'm installing Gentoo and I'd like you to suggest me how much disc space I should use for /. 512 MB. The rest should go to filesystems for /var, /usr, /opt and /home. And maybe also additional filesystems fo This is (part) what i have mount i`ve instales stuff for workstation (no kde, no gnome - only libs from them) + loot of dev. tools $ df System plików rozm. użyte dost. %uż. zamont. na /dev/hda8 14G 9,8G 3,4G 75% / udev 252M 180K 252M 1% /dev /dev/hda5 31M 6,7M 23M 24% /boot /dev/hda7 3,3G 1,3G 2,0G 40% /var /dev/hda10 22G 19G 2,3G 89% /home /dev/hda112,5G 242M 2,2G 10% /tmp /dev/hda9 1,5G 1,4G 26M 99% /mnt/ftp _ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: Izar Ilun wrote: I say that, It'll be just: - /boot - swap - /home - / (all the rest) That's not advisable. I'd strongly suggest to create filesystems for /boot, swap, /home, /opt, /usr, /var and / (of course). This way you're more flexible and also a bit safer (not such a high risk of running out of space on /). and he wastes a lot of space, makes boot a lot longer and increases head movement. One big / (like 40 or 80GB) will be enough (plus 15mb /boot, 2GB swap, the rest /home). With that sizes, it is nearly impossible to fill / completly up. But a too small /tmp or /var can make a boot impossible. To put everything on its own partition was good, when harddisks were 2gb-10gb big. But today it is just a waste of space and time. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thursday 16 February 2006 13:19, Izar Ilun wrote: I'm installing Gentoo and I'd like you to suggest me how much disc space I should use for /. My machine is Pentium4, 1GB RAM, 200 GB HD ATA It's a desktop machine with Gentoo as the only and exclusive OS. Will run KDE. Amarok, OpenOffice, firefox Thanx! 40-60gb for / 2GB swap 15MB /boot rest /home you'll never fill up root, so making a lot of partitions is just wasted space. Plus, when /tmp or /var are full you are f* anyway, so no reason to put them on their own partition. Additionally, the more partitions, the more useless head movement, the slower data transfer the earlier the harddisk dies. And yes, I once put all and everything on its own partition. I learnt the hard way, that this does not solve problems, it creates them. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm installing Gentoo and I'd like you to suggest me how much disc space I should use for /. 512 MB. The rest should go to filesystems for /var, /usr, /opt and /home. And maybe also additional filesystems fo This is (part) what i have mount i`ve instales stuff for workstation (no kde, no gnome - only libs from them) + loot of dev. tools $ df System plików rozm. użyte dost. %uż. zamont. na /dev/hda8 14G 9,8G 3,4G 75% / udev 252M 180K 252M 1% /dev /dev/hda5 31M 6,7M 23M 24% /boot /dev/hda7 3,3G 1,3G 2,0G 40% /var /dev/hda10 22G 19G 2,3G 89% /home /dev/hda112,5G 242M 2,2G 10% /tmp /dev/hda9 1,5G 1,4G 26M 99% /mnt/ftp Hm, as I said before - have a look at LVM. It makes life *SO* much easier. I don't quite get, why people still do the old style partitioning. For example, in your setup, how do you make /var larger, if need be? With LVM, it would just be a matter of lvresize -L+512m /dev/Volume00/Var. You also wouldn't waste so much space. Alexander Skwar -- BOFH Excuse #126: it has Intel Inside -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To put everything on its own partition was good, when harddisks were 2gb-10gb big. But today it is just a waste of space and time. IMHO there still might be advantages to using more partitions, for example security (you can mount /boot /tmp /home with nodev, noexec, nosuid, /usr with read-only, etc.), or different quota settings. But it would be probably more usable for server, less for workstation... Jarry -- Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I say that, It'll be just: - /boot - swap - /home - / (all the rest) That's not advisable. I'd strongly suggest to create filesystems for /boot, swap, /home, /opt, /usr, /var and / (of course). Moreover I have created separate partitions for /tmp (with nodev, noexec and qouta) and /chroot ... Further, I'd alsostrongly suggest to use LVM. True, though I did not put put /, /boot and swap on lvm. Just security precaution, so that system would be still somehow usable even in case something goes wrong with lmv... Jarry -- DSL-Aktion wegen großer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verlängert: GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: Izar Ilun wrote: I say that, It'll be just: - /boot - swap - /home - / (all the rest) That's not advisable. I'd strongly suggest to create filesystems for /boot, swap, /home, /opt, /usr, /var and / (of course). This way you're more flexible and also a bit safer (not such a high risk of running out of space on /). and he wastes a lot of space, No, he doesn't. Where does he waste space? Also, to use your argument - we're no longer in the age where 10gb harddrives are high end. makes boot a lot longer Not really. and increases head movement. One big / (like 40 or 80GB) will be enough Yes, and it's obviously the worst solution. How do you mount /tmp noexec? How do you mount /usr read-only? With that sizes, it is nearly impossible to fill / completly up. And it's impossible to have some flexibility. To put everything on its own partition was good, when harddisks were 2gb-10gb big. And it's still good today. But today it is just a waste of space and time. No, it's absolutely not. Alexander Skwar -- BOFH Excuse #126: it has Intel Inside -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:06:12 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: That's not advisable. I'd strongly suggest to create filesystems for /boot, swap, /home, /opt, /usr, /var and / (of course). This way you're more flexible and also a bit safer (not such a high risk of running out of space on /). But far more chance of running out of space on /usr, /var or /opt while Not really. And even if so - who cares? Make the fs larger, and you're set. Also, if those fs run out of space, it's not a DoS. one of the others has plenty free. Well, no, since it's also bad advice to have one with plenty free :) I prefer to have these three on the same partition for a desktop, I don't. Everything on its own filesystem. I mean, why not? Resizing, and especially extending, is so very easy. Alexander Skwar -- BOFH Excuse #126: it has Intel Inside -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Alexander Skwar wrote: Hm, as I said before - have a look at LVM. It makes life *SO* much easier. I don't quite get, why people still do the old style partitioning. For example, in your setup, how do you make /var larger, if need be? With LVM, it would just be a matter of lvresize -L+512m /dev/Volume00/Var. You also wouldn't waste so much space. Alexander Skwar -- BOFH Excuse #126: it has Intel Inside I do agree with almost all you said (like - for instance - having separate filesystems for the different top-level directories). Indeed, this (using several small filesystems mounted together instead of one large filesystem for /) is a technique that can be applied to speed things up (have a look at http://gentoo-wiki.com/TIP_Speeding_up_portage to see how Portage may profit from the use of small filesystems). Having said that, I would like to suggest that instead of using LVM, the top-poster might be better off by using EVMS (http://evms.sourceforge.net) since EVMS sports different UIs for all kinds of users (CLI, ncurses, X) and automates many tasks like resizing etc. Kind regards Martin Eisenhardt -- Dipl. Wirtsch.Inf.(Univ.) Martin Eisenhardt Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg Fakultät Wirtschaftinformatik und Angewandte Informatik Lehrstuhl für Medieninformatik D-96045 Bamberg fon: +49 (951) 863-2856 fax: +49 (951) 863-2852 www: http://www.mneisen.org pgptl8XUmkLRt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On 2/16/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on their own partition. Additionally, the more partitions, the more useless head movement, the slower data transfer the earlier the harddisk dies. I disagree. Sensible partitioning can _reduce_ head movement and improve performance. For example, take the case of /usr/portage. *Many* people have reported improvements in portages speed by moving this to a separate, small partition. This is because when you are running portage, it doesn't have to seek all over the disk to collect files...it only has to look at a few cylinders that are close together. Having / on its own partition can result in a similar improvement, because the drive doesn't have to seek over your files in /home or /opt to get to something in /lib. I also disagree with Alexander about /usr, in that I prefer to merge that with / since it keeps all of the programs and files needed to boot the system and start X/KDE/etc close together. But that is what works best _for me_ on my laptop. So I have: /boot 100M / 6G /tmp 2G /var 5G /home 66G (the rest of the disk) /usr/portage 1G /usr/portage/packages 6G (also contains distfiles) /usr/src 2G I have not run out of space on anything or had to resize a partition for more than a year. Ok, I do run out of room on /usr/src occasionally because I forget to prune old kernel sources...but that is harmless. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hm, as I said before - have a look at LVM. It makes life *SO* much easier. I don't quite get, why people still do the old style partitioning. Correct me if I am wrong, but with lvm you do not have control over physical placement of your partitions. Right? So if you use lvm even for swap, lvm might place it anywhere on disk, on the beginning (first cylinders, highest speed, i.e. ~50 MB/s) or at the end (in my case ~30 MB/s). Utilities like hdtach (win-world, I do not know something equivalent for linux) show, that read/write speed is not constant over the whole disk (number of sectors on outside cylinders is much higher, than on the inside cylinders). In some cases it might matter to partition disk wisely, for example when someone is doing tv/video grabbing, he needs maximum transfer speed to avoid frame-dropping, so it might be worth putting /home or /tmp somewhere near beginning of disk (outside cylinders). Similar for swap, plus optimising of head-movement, etc... Just my 2 cents, but personally I'm using lvm too... Jarry -- Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On 2/16/06 9:04 AM, Martin Eisenhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Skwar wrote: Hm, as I said before - have a look at LVM. It makes life *SO* much easier. I don't quite get, why people still do the old style partitioning. For example, in your setup, how do you make /var larger, if need be? With LVM, it would just be a matter of lvresize -L+512m /dev/Volume00/Var. You also wouldn't waste so much space. Alexander Skwar -- BOFH Excuse #126: it has Intel Inside I do agree with almost all you said (like - for instance - having separate filesystems for the different top-level directories). Indeed, this (using several small filesystems mounted together instead of one large filesystem for /) is a technique that can be applied to speed things up (have a look at http://gentoo-wiki.com/TIP_Speeding_up_portage to see how Portage may profit from the use of small filesystems). Having said that, I would like to suggest that instead of using LVM, the top-poster might be better off by using EVMS (http://evms.sourceforge.net) since EVMS sports different UIs for all kinds of users (CLI, ncurses, X) and automates many tasks like resizing etc. I have a question hereI was under the impression that evms sat below lvm...is it a one or the other thing? I've always been confused by the whole partition question, having come up through the AIX ranks, where such questions are nonexistent. Personally, for linux boxes, if it's my personal workstation, I just go with /boot swap and /. For servers, I separate out /boot swap /usr /var /tmp using lvm (using the aix maxim that you make them as small as possible and resize at threshold). Kind regards Martin Eisenhardt -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thursday February 16 2006 16:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hm, as I said before - have a look at LVM. It makes life *SO* much easier. I don't quite get, why people still do the old style partitioning. Correct me if I am wrong, but with lvm you do not have control over physical placement of your partitions. Right? No, wrong, I am sorry :-D You might let LVM choose where to put the extends for a newly created logical volume, but you might also tell LVM where to put it. So if you use lvm even for swap, lvm might place it anywhere on disk, on the beginning (first cylinders, highest speed, i.e. ~50 MB/s) or at the end (in my case ~30 MB/s). You can tell LVM to put it wherever you want, see above. Utilities like hdtach (win-world, I do not know something equivalent for linux) show, that read/write speed is not constant over the whole disk (number of sectors on outside cylinders is much higher, than on the inside cylinders). Correct, but then - does the performance of your system really depend on the speed of your swap device? If so, consider upgrading RAM. You will *never* get swap devices so fast that it is really pleasurable to work with them. In some cases it might matter to partition disk wisely, for example when someone is doing tv/video grabbing, he needs maximum transfer speed to avoid frame-dropping, so it might be worth putting /home or /tmp somewhere near beginning of disk (outside cylinders). Similar for swap, plus optimising of head-movement, etc... Again, see above. Regards Martin -- Dipl. Wirtsch.Inf.(Univ.) Martin Eisenhardt Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg Fakultät Wirtschaftinformatik und Angewandte Informatik Lehrstuhl für Medieninformatik D-96045 Bamberg fon: +49 (951) 863-2856 fax: +49 (951) 863-2852 www: http://www.mneisen.org pgpsmF2p3QUtq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hm, as I said before - have a look at LVM. It makes life *SO* much easier. I don't quite get, why people still do the old style partitioning. Correct me if I am wrong, but with lvm you do not have control over physical placement of your partitions. Right? Right. So if you use lvm even for swap, lvm might place it anywhere on disk, on the beginning (first cylinders, highest speed, i.e. ~50 MB/s) or at the end (in my case ~30 MB/s). Well, it might, yes. However, if you create it as the first Logical Volume, then I'd suppose that it would be at the beginning of the Volume Group. I don't know that though. But as swap is a static partition (meaning that it'll most likely close to never need to be resized), I don't put swap in LVM. No gain. If I need more swap, it's most of the time just a temporary thing. And then I don't care that much about performance. In some cases it might matter to partition disk wisely, for example when someone is doing tv/video grabbing, he needs maximum transfer speed to avoid frame-dropping, so it might be worth putting /home or /tmp somewhere near beginning of disk (outside cylinders). Similar for swap, plus optimising of head-movement, etc... Yes, for special cases, special solutions might be needed. I wasn't under the impression that the OP had such a special case, though :) Alexander Skwar -- BOFH Excuse #126: it has Intel Inside -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: you'll never fill up root, so making a lot of partitions is just wasted space. No, it's not wasted space. Well, okay, not much wasted space. And yes, I once put all and everything on its own partition. I learnt the hard way, that this does not solve problems, it creates them. Yes, you're right - everything on own *PARTITIONS* creates problems. I'm advocating LVM, though. Alexander Skwar -- BOFH Excuse #126: it has Intel Inside -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thursday 16 February 2006 16:14, Robert Crawford wrote: The main reason for putting /var, /tmp, and portage on their own partitions is to minimize fragmentation on /, especially with a source distro like Gentoo. And yes, Linux does fragment and does require attention, especially with reiserfs, where the only solution is to dump/format/restore. dump/restore does not work anymore. for years. tar/mkfs/tar is the right way to do backups/restores. Plus, you can keep fragmentation down, if you let enough space free. With lots of small partitions, the partitions will always almost filled up, which leads to more fragmentation. Also, the more partitions, the more the heads have to move around. And we all know, that this decreases total lifetime. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: Izar Ilun wrote: I say that, It'll be just: - /boot - swap - /home - / (all the rest) That's not advisable. I'd strongly suggest to create filesystems for /boot, swap, /home, /opt, /usr, /var and / (of course). This way you're more flexible and also a bit safer (not such a high risk of running out of space on /). and he wastes a lot of space, No, he doesn't. Where does he waste space? because you shall not fill up any partition more than 85% or fragmentation will go up insanly and performance go down to the bottom. makes boot a lot longer Not really. yes, really. and increases head movement. One big / (like 40 or 80GB) will be enough Yes, and it's obviously the worst solution. How do you mount /tmp noexec? How do you mount /usr read-only? why should you mount /usr readonly, if you do your emerging always everyday? Why should he make /tmp noexec, if he is the only user? With that sizes, it is nearly impossible to fill / completly up. And it's impossible to have some flexibility. no, it is absolutly flexible - less partitions, more space available, that can be used. And less risk, that any of the partitions fills up. To put everything on its own partition was good, when harddisks were 2gb-10gb big. And it's still good today. no it is not But today it is just a waste of space and time. No, it's absolutely not. yes it is. It wastes space, makes boot much longer. More partitions = more haead movement = higher risk of damage. More partitions = more risk that one of the partitions dies = more risk of fatal data loss. More partitions = less space available = more money wasted. You see, there are a lot of good reasons to keep the number of patitions low. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thursday 16 February 2006 16:02, Richard Fish wrote: Having / on its own partition can result in a similar improvement, because the drive doesn't have to seek over your files in /home or /opt to get to something in /lib. it still has to move at the beginning of the partition, look up, where the files are, and move. And maybbe it has to skip several partitions. And when at the same moment something else want something from /opt, it has to move to the next partition that may lay somewhere on the disk, which is much slower, than a full stroke to the beginning of the disk. So I have: /boot 100M thait is total overkill... 15 is way enough. Even 10... / 6G /tmp 2G /var 5G you dson't use ccache, do you? /home 66G (the rest of the disk) /usr/portage 1G /usr/portage/packages 6G (also contains distfiles) On my machine du -h /usr/portage = 4,4GB... pretty close to your 7 GB combined.. and your /usr/portage should never fill up more than 85%, so you are wasting some mbs there, and some more on your 'packages' partition... -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On 2/16/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but with lvm you do not have control over physical placement of your partitions. Right? While true in theory, in practice the first LV you create is created at the lowest numbered PV extents, which correspond to low numbered sectors. My swap LV (which was created first) averages 44M/sec throughput (laptop drive, still slow...) My packages LV (for portage distfiles, created last) averages 28M/sec. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thursday February 16 2006 16:30, Alexander Skwar wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hm, as I said before - have a look at LVM. It makes life *SO* much easier. I don't quite get, why people still do the old style partitioning. Correct me if I am wrong, but with lvm you do not have control over physical placement of your partitions. Right? Right. No, wrong, please see my other message. You *can* tell LVM where to put LVs but you do not *have* to. In the latter case, LVM chooses where to put the LV. Regards Martin -- Dipl. Wirtsch.Inf.(Univ.) Martin Eisenhardt Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg Fakultät Wirtschaftinformatik und Angewandte Informatik Lehrstuhl für Medieninformatik D-96045 Bamberg fon: +49 (951) 863-2856 fax: +49 (951) 863-2852 www: http://www.mneisen.org pgplY2eYDI5EM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:39:02 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: But far more chance of running out of space on /usr, /var or /opt while Not really. And even if so - who cares? Make the fs larger, and you're set. Also, if those fs run out of space, it's not a DoS. No, but it means you have to stop what you are doing to re-organise and resize your partitions. one of the others has plenty free. Well, no, since it's also bad advice to have one with plenty free :) Could you point me in the direction of the program that magically tells you how much space you'll need for each directory in a year's time :) I prefer to have these three on the same partition for a desktop, I don't. Everything on its own filesystem. I mean, why not? Resizing, and especially extending, is so very easy. Extending is easy, but shrinking is not so easy or quick. If partition A runs out of space while partition B has plenty, you have to shrink B's filesystem before you can add space to A. That's time consuming, especially if B uses XFS. Just because a directory existing in /, it doesn't have to be on a separate filesystem. Use whatever works for your needs, but be sensible, too many partitions is almost as bad as too few, and creates extra work. -- Neil Bothwick In the begining, there was nothing. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Martin Eisenhardt wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but with lvm you do not have control over physical placement of your partitions. Right? No, wrong, I am sorry :-D You might let LVM choose where to put the extends for a newly created logical volume, but you might also tell LVM where to put it. Frankly, that is new to me. How can I control *where* the newly created partition (in lvm) will be? Or is it somehow default that if I create only one big partition on my disk, and assign it to lvm, than 1st partition I create within lvm will be at the beginning of the disk??? But even if it is so, if you resize partition by lvm, this advantage could be lost. And if it even is possible to keep some partition continuous, than resizing partition in lvm would be very long process: if I resize 1st partition (the fastest, on the most outer cylinders) and want to keep it continuous, lvm would have to move all other partitions... Jarry -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:39:02 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: But far more chance of running out of space on /usr, /var or /opt while Not really. And even if so - who cares? Make the fs larger, and you're set. Also, if those fs run out of space, it's not a DoS. No, but it means you have to stop what you are doing to re-organise and resize your partitions. Well, okay, but how often does that happen? And it's not as if resizing would be hard or time consuming. one of the others has plenty free. Well, no, since it's also bad advice to have one with plenty free :) Could you point me in the direction of the program that magically tells you how much space you'll need for each directory in a year's time :) I can't. But that's just not needed. Make the filesystems as large as they *now* need to be. If more space is required, extending is a matter of a few seconds. I prefer to have these three on the same partition for a desktop, I don't. Everything on its own filesystem. I mean, why not? Resizing, and especially extending, is so very easy. Extending is easy, but shrinking is not so easy or quick. That's correct. If it is possible at all. If partition A runs out of space while partition B has plenty, Then you made B too large, which is the main cause of the problem. you have to shrink B's filesystem before you can add space to A. That's time consuming, especially if B uses XFS. What's so special about XFS? The fact that there's no shrinker? Just because a directory existing in /, it doesn't have to be on a separate filesystem. Of course not. It would be bad advice to put sbin, lib, bin or especially etc on seperate filesystems. :) For everything else, it makes sense to use seperate filesystems. Use whatever works for your needs, Yes, of course. but be sensible, too many partitions Well. If we're talking just about usr, var, home, tmp, Gentoo, sources, then that's not too many in most cases. is almost as bad as too few, and creates extra work. Well, it is not much extra work if it is extra work at all. Actually I rather think, that it's less work - in the long run Alexander Skwar -- Wrong, said Renner. The tactful way, Rod said quietly, the polite way to disagree with the Senator would be to say, `That turns out not to be the case.' -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Alexander Skwar wrote: I can't. But that's just not needed. Make the filesystems as large as they *now* need to be. If more space is required, extending is a matter of a few seconds. I agree with that. 80GB drive, lvm up 50GB of it, and then you can grow whatever as needed. It's not like you need all that space to begin with. Maybe you end up needing more in /var? Add another 10GB. Maybe /home? Add another 10GB. kashani -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Jarry wrote: But even if it is so, if you resize partition by lvm, this advantage could be lost. And if it even is possible to keep some partition continuous, than resizing partition in lvm would be very long process: if I resize 1st partition (the fastest, on the most outer cylinders) and want to keep it continuous, lvm would have to move all other partitions... But LVM is so useful, that even THAT would be possible with *NO* downtime AT ALL! This is possible, if you've got multiple physical volumes. In text books, a pv is a complete harddrive (eg. /dev/sda). But that's not necessary. Instead, you could also use a partition (/dev/sda1) and there's also nothing stopping one from having multiple PVs on one drive. Now, if there are multiple PVs in one VG, it's easy to do a pvmove, which will move logical volumes to another phyisical volume. And all that's /possible/ while the filesystem is still in use! Granted, I'd not do this at prime time... :) But how do you do that with the legacy style of partitioning? And also, how do you *control* exactly which data is at the beginning (or wherever) of a drive, if you're going to have only one grossly oversized partition on a drive? Alexander Skwar -- As famous as the unknown soldier. Ö -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: Izar Ilun wrote: I say that, It'll be just: - /boot - swap - /home - / (all the rest) That's not advisable. I'd strongly suggest to create filesystems for /boot, swap, /home, /opt, /usr, /var and / (of course). This way you're more flexible and also a bit safer (not such a high risk of running out of space on /). and he wastes a lot of space, No, he doesn't. Where does he waste space? because you shall not fill up any partition more than 85% or fragmentation will go up insanly and performance go down to the bottom. Yes, but we're no longer in the age, where 10GB hard drives are high end. I do agree, that you might waste a little bit of space. But that's it. And that's only a theoretical value. Nothing to worry about in real life. makes boot a lot longer Not really. yes, really. jaja. Why should he make /tmp noexec, Security precaution. if you have 10+ users with access to the box. But a workstation, without even sshd running, it is not needed. And hey, why should /tmp noexec save you from anything? If someone is able to break into your box, he can build his tools in /home or /var/tmp or somewhere else. No need for /tmp. With that sizes, it is nearly impossible to fill / completly up. And it's impossible to have some flexibility. no, it is absolutly flexible Ah. Please explain how you mount /tmp noexec and /usr readonly. I don't because it is wasted effort. If someone has the right to write to a rw /usr/ partition, he has the rights to remount a ro /usr as rw and can go on.. It just makes maintance harder. Please also explain, how you seperate data areas (like /var and /usr). I have /var and /usr? Why shuld I seperate them any further? To put everything on its own partition was good, when harddisks were 2gb-10gb big. And it's still good today. no it is not I see. Strange thing is, that about every server and workstation I've seen more or less contradicts what you say. if you have 20+ users on each of them, and every single one is a little cracker in disguisse, it may make sense, but for a single user box? No. But today it is just a waste of space and time. No, it's absolutely not. yes it is. It wastes space, Not really. Some. But not really. 15% of the space on each partition. That sums up. makes boot much longer. No, it doesn't. Not noticeably, at least. oh really? Have a look at the forums 'my *fs takes this and that long to mount' If every partition takes a second, it will be very noticable. More partitions = more haead movement = higher risk of damage. More partitions = more risk that one of the partitions dies = more risk of fatal data loss. There's always backup. More partitions = less space available Not really. Some. But not really. If you're *SO* low on hard disk space, I'd advice to buy more harddisks. more harddisks = higher chance that one of them dies. I had 4 simultaniously running harddisk once. I went down to one big one. Because every couple of month one disk died. It is simple math. The more disks, the higher the risk. Actually, as *you* see, there aren't many reasons and no good reasons to do what you say. I haven't seen any good reason for a bazillion small partitions, that only increase your work and have to be monitored constantly (f* /var is full, f* /tmp is full f* I have to remount /usr). -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On 2/16/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 16:02, Richard Fish wrote: Having / on its own partition can result in a similar improvement, because the drive doesn't have to seek over your files in /home or /opt to get to something in /lib. it still has to move at the beginning of the partition, look up, where the files are, and move. And maybbe it has to skip several partitions. And when at the same moment something else want something from /opt, it has to move to the next partition that may lay somewhere on the disk, which is much slower, than a full stroke to the beginning of the disk. Except that directory entry tables are agressively cached by the system. Once getdents() has been called once for a directory, calling it again on the same directory almost never requires any disk IO. And again, for my _single user_ system, it is very unlikely that 'something else' is going to require a file from /opt (which, BTW, is also merged with /) at the same time. Even opening an openoffice document has to first read a bunch of files from /usr, /usr/lib, /usr/share, et al, before touching anything in /home. So I have: /boot 100M thait is total overkill... 15 is way enough. Even 10... Wrong. I integrate fbsplash images as well as some emergency recovery tools with an initramfs in my kernel images, making each kernel image 7-10M. And since I keep 1-2 backup kernel images, that means I would need at least 30MB for /boot. Please don't tell me how much space is required for my various filesystems. I assure you I know better! :-) you dson't use ccache, do you? No. Never saw any significant boost from it...at least not enough to justify the amount of space it consumed. Anyway there is more than one way to partition a system, and there are benefits and risks to the different methods. People should really consider what is best for them, and not try to impose their way as the only correct way. My main point was simply that for many cases, a partitioned system will have fewer and more predicatable head movements than an unpartitioned system. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: Izar Ilun wrote: Why should he make /tmp noexec, Security precaution. if you have 10+ users with access to the box. But a workstation, without even sshd running, it is not needed. needed - What's needed, anyway? And hey, why should /tmp noexec save you from anything? Because it does. If someone is able to break into your box, he can build his tools in /home or /var/tmp or somewhere else. No need for /tmp. Wrong again. If tmp is the only place somebody can write, then it might save you (and it DID save my ass more than once now). With that sizes, it is nearly impossible to fill / completly up. And it's impossible to have some flexibility. no, it is absolutly flexible Ah. Please explain how you mount /tmp noexec and /usr readonly. I don't because it is wasted effort. Of course it's not. So, how do you do that? If someone has the right to write to a rw /usr/ partition, Why should he have that right? he has the rights to remount a ro /usr as rw That's of couse wrong again. and can go on.. It just makes maintance harder. Not really. Please also explain, how you seperate data areas (like /var and /usr). I have /var and /usr? That's not the question. Please answer it. *YOU* are the one saying that a grossly oversized filesystem offers more flexibility. I see. Strange thing is, that about every server and workstation I've seen more or less contradicts what you say. if you have 20+ users on each of them, and every single one is a little cracker in disguisse, it may make sense, but for a single user box? Why are you asking? yes it is. It wastes space, Not really. Some. But not really. 15% of the space on each partition. That sums up. Yep. And your 15% are of course less then my 15%, correct? If every partition takes a second, it will be very noticable. Hardly. (Notice that I'm not saying No.) While what you're saying is true in theory, you're exaggerating enourmously. And because of that, you're wrong. If you're *SO* low on hard disk space, I'd advice to buy more harddisks. more harddisks = higher chance that one of them dies. Yep. Time to stop those bad backups. You're funny. More of this, please! 8=) It is simple math. *LOL* _You_ should not talk about maths :) I haven't seen any good reason for a bazillion small partitions, That's of course not what I wrote. BTW: What's a bazillion? More than you can count? More than 5? :) And *YOU* are talking about maths? *G* You are really making me laugh - thanks! that only increase your work Not really. and have to be monitored constantly (f* /var is full, f* /tmp is full f* I have to remount /usr). What are you talking about? constantly? Well, you know, if df is too hard for you - sorry, pal, tough luck. But you just cannot expect to be taken seriously. Alexander Skwar -- So what is the best way to protect yourself against the ILOVEYOU virus? Install Linux. If that's not an option, try uninstalling Windows. -- Geoff Johnson -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:40:49 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: needed - What's needed, anyway? / and swap, nothing else :) -- Neil Bothwick Crayons can take you more places than starships. * Guinan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thursday 16 February 2006 21:11, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:46:57 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: If partition A runs out of space while partition B has plenty, Then you made B too large, which is the main cause of the problem. Of course, but if your needs change, that's the situation you find yourself in, as I did recently. you have to shrink B's filesystem before you can add space to A. That's time consuming, especially if B uses XFS. What's so special about XFS? The fact that there's no shrinker? Yes, so a matter of seconds turns into the time it takes to backup, repartition and restore, which can take a while if the partition is tens of GB and you have no space elsewhere for the backup. I've used complex partition layouts in the past and have found that, as with most things, KISS is the best approach. at least one who went to the same hell... -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:40, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: Izar Ilun wrote: Why should he make /tmp noexec, Security precaution. if you have 10+ users with access to the box. But a workstation, without even sshd running, it is not needed. needed - What's needed, anyway? And hey, why should /tmp noexec save you from anything? Because it does. so? how? how does it save you from anything? Please tell me. With examples. If someone is able to break into your box, he can build his tools in /home or /var/tmp or somewhere else. No need for /tmp. Wrong again. If tmp is the only place somebody can write, then it might save you (and it DID save my ass more than once now). since /tmp is not the only place where someone can write (/var/tmp anyone?) it won't help you much. Ah. Please explain how you mount /tmp noexec and /usr readonly. I don't because it is wasted effort. Of course it's not. yes it is. So, how do you do that? I don't want to, because it is pointless. If someone has the right to write to a rw /usr/ partition, Why should he have that right? if he has enough rights, that you have to worry about rw /usr, he has enough rights, to circumvent ro mounting by remounting. he has the rights to remount a ro /usr as rw That's of couse wrong again. no, that is correct. and can go on.. It just makes maintance harder. Not really. yes really, you have to remount /usr everytime you update something. Please also explain, how you seperate data areas (like /var and /usr). I have /var and /usr? That's not the question. yes it is. Please answer it. *YOU* are the one saying that a grossly oversized filesystem offers more flexibility. I do, because they never fill up. But, hey, what are YOU doing, when your box does not boot anymore, because /tmp or /var/tmp are 100% full? I see. Strange thing is, that about every server and workstation I've seen more or less contradicts what you say. if you have 20+ users on each of them, and every single one is a little cracker in disguisse, it may make sense, but for a single user box? Why are you asking? because you are the one starting with 'server' and 'workstations' and the OP never talked about one or the other. If every partition takes a second, it will be very noticable. Hardly. (Notice that I'm not saying No.) if mounting becomes the major 'hold up' in your booting process, it becomes VERY noticable. While what you're saying is true in theory, you're exaggerating enourmously. And because of that, you're wrong. no, I am right. I have been there, I have done lots of partitions for all and everything and I did it for a long time. It is just a waste of effort. If you're *SO* low on hard disk space, I'd advice to buy more harddisks. more harddisks = higher chance that one of them dies. Yep. Time to stop those bad backups. You're funny. More of this, please! 8=) no, it is pure math. More harddisks=bigger chance that one of them dies. And it does not matter how often you are doing backups, there will always be something that gets lost. Plus it takes time to restore. It is simple math. *LOL* _You_ should not talk about maths :) you obviously don't understand simple statistics. Sad. Again: if every harddrive has a chance to die in 1:100 000 hours, every disk you add increases the chance that ONE of them dies. That is very simple. Ask your teacher. I haven't seen any good reason for a bazillion small partitions, That's of course not what I wrote. BTW: What's a bazillion? More than you can count? More than 5? :) And *YOU* are talking about maths? a bazillion is just more than needed. And more than needed on a single home computer is anything above 4 for the system (boot, /, /home, swap). *G* You are really making me laugh - thanks! you too. that only increase your work Not really. yes, really, remount this, remount that, check that there is enough space in /var, check that there is enough space in /usr, check this, check that = more work. and have to be monitored constantly (f* /var is full, f* /tmp is full f* I have to remount /usr). What are you talking about? constantly? almost everyday, if you want to be sure, that none of your partitions does not get full. Well, you know, if df is too hard for you - sorry, pal, tough luck. But you just cannot expect to be taken seriously. you forgot 'cp', 'mv' and, in the worst case 'tar everything up and change partition layout, because /usr became to small' You are the one, who does not understand simple math, I am laughing about you all evening now. And as I said, I know what I am
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:21, Alexander Skwar wrote: You *can* tell LVM where to put LVs but you do not *have* to. But how do you actually do that? Or are you talking about the allocation policy? Like --contiguous y? Well, first of all, you can pass lvcreate a list of physical volumes that are then used to allocate extends for the newly created logical volume. By the order of LV creation, you determine the sequence of LVs on the PVs (or ore correctly, the sequence, in which the extends of one or more PVs are allocated to one or more LVs). Then, you may use lvmove to move a LV to another PV. You may use lvsplit to split a LV into two or more parts and then use lvmove to move these part-LVs around. Thirdly, you can (either by hand or by using a more sophisticated tool like EVMS) alter the mapping of LV extends to PV extends. There are surely even more ways to tell LVM where to store LVs, but these are the ones that come immediately to my mind. Kind regads Martin -- Dipl. Wirtsch.Inf. (Univ.) Martin Eisenhardt Otto-Friedrich-University Bamberg Department Business Informatics and Applied Computer Science Media Informatics Group D - 96045 Bamberg fon: +49 (951) 863 2856 fax: +49 (951) 863 2852 www: http://www.mneisen.org pgpKhOTBSQJIK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On 2/16/06, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: / and swap, nothing else :) Well if we are going to be silly, you actually only need / -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:40:49 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: needed - What's needed, anyway? / and swap, nothing else :) Nah. / - that's it. swap *can* be a file :) Alexander Skwar -- Here comes Mr. Bill's dog. -- Narrator, Saturday Night Live -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:40, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: Izar Ilun wrote: Why should he make /tmp noexec, Security precaution. if you have 10+ users with access to the box. But a workstation, without even sshd running, it is not needed. needed - What's needed, anyway? And hey, why should /tmp noexec save you from anything? Because it does. so? how? Think, you might find out. What does noexec do, hm? Even *you* might find out... Well... If I think about it... No, you're too clueless to find out. Hint 1: noexec nowadays makes it impossible to execute programs stored on that filesystem. Hint 2: /tmp (and /var/tmp) are (hopefully) the only places where everybody can write. If someone is able to break into your box, he can build his tools in /home or /var/tmp or somewhere else. No need for /tmp. Wrong again. If tmp is the only place somebody can write, then it might save you (and it DID save my ass more than once now). since /tmp is not the only place where someone can write (/var/tmp anyone?) True. /var/tmp is a link to /tmp on my system. And if not, /var/tmp could also easily be a seperate fs. it won't help you much. That's of course wrong again. Ah. Please explain how you mount /tmp noexec and /usr readonly. I don't because it is wasted effort. Of course it's not. yes it is. Jaja. Just because you've got problems, it doesn't mean that there ARE problems. So, how do you do that? I don't want to, That's not the point. So, how do you do that? because it is pointless. Of course not. if he has enough rights, that you have to worry about rw /usr, he has enough rights, to circumvent ro mounting by remounting. No, not necessarily. he has the rights to remount a ro /usr as rw That's of couse wrong again. no, that is correct. No, it's not. Write permissions don't mean, that somebody is root. Well - maybe on your systems. But not on well maintained systems. and can go on.. It just makes maintance harder. Not really. yes really, you have to remount /usr everytime you update something. Jaja. You know, your exaggerations become boring... Please also explain, how you seperate data areas (like /var and /usr). I have /var and /usr? That's not the question. yes it is. No, it's not. Please answer the question. Please answer it. *YOU* are the one saying that a grossly oversized filesystem offers more flexibility. I do, because they never fill up. That's not the point. The question was, how do you optimize so that the most often needed files are at the beginning of the hd? But, hey, what are YOU doing, when your box does not boot anymore, because /tmp or /var/tmp are 100% full? a) /tmp is cleaned during boot - so this won't happen anyway. b) Don't let it happen in the first place. c) Boot a rescue system like Knoppix and clean /tmp. d) In reality, I NEVER had it happen that /tmp or /var/tmp ran out of space. What happened more often is that /var ran out of space, because of the logs in /var/log. I see. Strange thing is, that about every server and workstation I've seen more or less contradicts what you say. if you have 20+ users on each of them, and every single one is a little cracker in disguisse, it may make sense, but for a single user box? Why are you asking? because you are the one starting with 'server' and 'workstations' Correct. So what? Why are you asking? and the OP never talked about one or the other. His system MUST be the one or the other. If every partition takes a second, it will be very noticable. Hardly. (Notice that I'm not saying No.) if mounting becomes the major 'hold up' in your booting process, it becomes VERY noticable. Jaja. Do you actually expect to be taken seriously? While what you're saying is true in theory, you're exaggerating enourmously. And because of that, you're wrong. no, I am right. stampf! No, you are not right in reality. Only in theory you are right. I have been there, I doubt that. I have done lots of partitions for all and everything and I did it for a long time. It is just a waste of effort. Jaja. If you're *SO* low on hard disk space, I'd advice to buy more harddisks. more harddisks = higher chance that one of them dies. Yep. Time to stop those bad backups. You're funny. More of this, please! 8=) no, it is pure math. Told ya - don't talk about maths, please! More harddisks=bigger chance that one of them dies. True. So? What does this have to do with the fact, that the available hd's are too small? Just as a reminder - that's the scenario YOU are talking about. It is simple
Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?
On 16 February 2006 22:12, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:40:49 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: needed - What's needed, anyway? / and swap, nothing else :) Actually, not even swap. ;-) Amazing how passionate people turn over how to partition the system. Uwe -- Why do consumers keep buying products they will live to curse? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
