Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Mike McCarty wrote: > Does the build partition really need to be 10G? For LFS alone, no. A few years ago we checked it and determined the minimum size would be 1.3G, but that has probably grown. I've not tested it, but I suspect that you can get by with 2G fairly easily, but that doesn't account for any BLFS packages. The big package is glibc in chapter 6. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/6.6/core2duo/6.6-SBU_DU-2010-02-27.report > Would 5G be enough to build a new BLFS with smallish desktop, like > fluxbox, not a big GNOME or KDE? I have a similar system and the usage is 4.2G. It would be slightly smaller on a 32-bit system. 5.1Mbin 3.5Metc 22M lib 2.2Gopt 168Kroot 6.8Msbin 72K share 22M srv 1.7Gusr 39M var -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote: > I'm a laid off engineer on a zero income budget, so $$$ are a prime > consideration. I bought a basic system for $1 at at swap meet. It > had no hard drive, and a burnt out power supply, and only 64M of RAM. > I've added another 128M of RAM from a junker, and transplanted a PS > from another machine, and added a 40G WD HD. > > I've added a couple of CD-ROM drives, one of which can write, and so > I've got a base system up. It boots the LiveCD (6.3) and I've used it to > build LFS 6.4, which it boots and runs on another drive temporarily. > > Now, I'm looking for partitioning info on this very minimal system. > > Here's my initial thoughts... > > prtn sizemount point > --- > hda1 100M/boot > hda2 10G / (main) > hda3 10G / (build) > hda5 20G /home > If you've only got 128M of RAM you'll need a swap partition. I use one partition for both /hom and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link pointing at /home/boot > Does the build partition really need to be 10G? Would 5G be enough > to build a new BLFS with smallish desktop, like fluxbox, not a big > GNOME or KDE? If so, then /home could grow by another 10G, which > would be nice. On my netbook I use 4G for /, but I think I could get away with 3 at a pinch. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
[...]
>> Here's my initial thoughts...
>>
>> prtn sizemount point
>> ---
>> hda1 100M/boot
>> hda2 10G / (main)
>> hda3 10G / (build)
>> hda5 20G /home
>>
>
> If you've only got 128M of RAM you'll need a swap partition.
I want to use a swap file of about 1G, not a partition. I'd put
it in /home.
> I use one partition for both /hom and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link
> pointing at /home/boot
Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is
there something I don't know?
>> Does the build partition really need to be 10G? Would 5G be enough
>> to build a new BLFS with smallish desktop, like fluxbox, not a big
>> GNOME or KDE? If so, then /home could grow by another 10G, which
>> would be nice.
>
> On my netbook I use 4G for /, but I think I could get away with 3 at a pinch.
Ok, that's very useful information. Thanks!
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Mike McCarty wrote: > Andrew Benton wrote: >> On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote: > > [...] > >>> Here's my initial thoughts... >>> >>> prtn size mount point >>> --- >>> hda1 100M /boot >>> hda2 10G / (main) >>> hda3 10G / (build) >>> hda5 20G /home >>> >> >> If you've only got 128M of RAM you'll need a swap partition. > > I want to use a swap file of about 1G, not a partition. I'd put > it in /home. Not a great idea as to placement of the swap file. Just IMO. I can't back it up logically because of a lack of food and sleep. ~SpaceGhost -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Mike McCarty
> wrote:
>> Andrew Benton wrote:
>>> On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> [...]
>>
Here's my initial thoughts...
prtn sizemount point
---
hda1 100M/boot
hda2 10G / (main)
hda3 10G / (build)
hda5 20G /home
>>> If you've only got 128M of RAM you'll need a swap partition.
>> I want to use a swap file of about 1G, not a partition. I'd put
>> it in /home.
>
> Not a great idea as to placement of the swap file. Just IMO. I can't
> back it up logically because of a lack of food and sleep.
I want to put it where each bootable version can access it. I don't
want to carve 1G out of each of the partitions, so /home/swap is
a reasonable compromise. Each partition then has /swap as a symbolic
link, to make it easy to find.
If you have a better suggestion, I'm open to it. I don't like a
separate partition, though.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mike McCarty wrote: > Johnneylee Rollins wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Mike McCarty >> wrote: >>> Andrew Benton wrote: On 04/03/10 19:13, Mike McCarty wrote: >>> [...] >>> > Here's my initial thoughts... > > prtn size mount point > --- > hda1 100M /boot > hda2 10G / (main) > hda3 10G / (build) > hda5 20G /home > If you've only got 128M of RAM you'll need a swap partition. >>> I want to use a swap file of about 1G, not a partition. I'd put >>> it in /home. >> >> Not a great idea as to placement of the swap file. Just IMO. I can't >> back it up logically because of a lack of food and sleep. > > I want to put it where each bootable version can access it. I don't > want to carve 1G out of each of the partitions, so /home/swap is > a reasonable compromise. Each partition then has /swap as a symbolic > link, to make it easy to find. > > If you have a better suggestion, I'm open to it. I don't like a > separate partition, though. about /swap -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
On 04/03/10 20:13, Mike McCarty wrote: > Andrew Benton wrote: > >> I use one partition for both /home and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link >> pointing at /home/boot > > Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is > there something I don't know? I keep my kernel in /home/boot, along with all grub's files, so that if I boot into one LFS partition or the other I can use the same kernel and I never need to use grub to rewrite the MBR Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
stosss wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mike McCarty
> wrote:
>> I want to put it where each bootable version can access it. I don't
>> want to carve 1G out of each of the partitions, so /home/swap is
>> a reasonable compromise. Each partition then has /swap as a symbolic
>> link, to make it easy to find.
>>
>> If you have a better suggestion, I'm open to it. I don't like a
>> separate partition, though.
>
> about /swap
If I understand you, that carves 1G out of each of the system
partitions.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 04/03/10 20:13, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Andrew Benton wrote:
>>
>>> I use one partition for both /home and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link
>>> pointing at /home/boot
>> Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is
>> there something I don't know?
>
> I keep my kernel in /home/boot, along with all grub's files, so that if I
> boot into one
> LFS partition or the other I can use the same kernel and I never need to use
> grub to rewrite
> the MBR
Good point on not having to rewrite. If one builds a new LFS, doesn't
one ordinarily also end up with a different kernel anyway, though?
I do like sequestering the kernels and boot control information,
but that can be done with an ordinary directory.
One issue with large discs is that one needs whatever contains /boot
to be near the beginning of the disc in some circumstances.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Mike McCarty wrote: > stosss wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mike McCarty >> wrote: >>> I want to put it where each bootable version can access it. I don't >>> want to carve 1G out of each of the partitions, so /home/swap is >>> a reasonable compromise. Each partition then has /swap as a symbolic >>> link, to make it easy to find. >>> >>> If you have a better suggestion, I'm open to it. I don't like a >>> separate partition, though. >> >> about /swap > > If I understand you, that carves 1G out of each of the system > partitions. If the swap file is on the / partition how does it take up space on the other partitions? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Mike McCarty wrote: > Andrew Benton wrote: >> On 04/03/10 20:13, Mike McCarty wrote: >>> Andrew Benton wrote: >>> I use one partition for both /home and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link pointing at /home/boot >>> Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is >>> there something I don't know? >> I keep my kernel in /home/boot, along with all grub's files, so that if I >> boot into one >> LFS partition or the other I can use the same kernel and I never need to use >> grub to rewrite >> the MBR > > Good point on not having to rewrite. If one builds a new LFS, doesn't > one ordinarily also end up with a different kernel anyway, though? > I do like sequestering the kernels and boot control information, > but that can be done with an ordinary directory. > > One issue with large discs is that one needs whatever contains /boot > to be near the beginning of the disc in some circumstances. That depends on the BIOS. The partition tables are almost all LBA format now and even with 512 byte sectors, and that goes to 2T. The disks are now starting to have 4096 byte sectors and using GPT formatted partition tables. Their limit is 2^64 blocks. That should last for the next year or two. Older BIOSes can impose problems. I personally don't like to take chances and recommend putting /boot on /dev/sda1. Actually, on my normal system, I never removed the original Dell partitions so I have a 40M /dev/sda1 that would boot to DOS and a 2.6G /dev/sda2 that also boots to DOS. The later has some isos and docs, but I never have looked at them. They date back to 2005 when I got the system. /boot is /dev/sda3. I've just been lazy and not bothered to clean them off. Mike, I don't understand your dislike for separate /boot and swap partitions. They are not large and really don't need to change once set up properly. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
stosss wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Mike McCarty
> wrote:
>> stosss wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mike McCarty
>>> wrote:
>> If I understand you, that carves 1G out of each of the system
>> partitions.
>
> If the swap file is on the / partition how does it take up space on
> the other partitions?
There are two / partitions, the "current" and "next".
For ease of reference, I'll repeat here what I wrote before.
prtnsizemount point
---
hda1100M/boot
hda210G / (main)
hda310G / (build)
hda520G /home
The / (main) is the one which would contain the currently
known working version used for normal boot and use, and
/ (build) would be the one to hold the next version of
LFS/BLFS which is "under construction" and would be used
to boot for building the next release.
In order to use swap, it needs to be available regardless
of which version is running. So, if it's in /, then there
are two copies, one in each /, and each gets 1G carved out
of it.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Mike, I don't understand your dislike for separate /boot and swap
> partitions. They are not large and really don't need to change once set
> up properly.
I don't dislike a separate /boot partition. I like that, and I like
it near the beginning of the disc.
I don't like a separate swap partition, because it's difficult to
resize, and the information I have is that with 2.6 kernels a swap file
is as fast as a separate partition, and much easier to resize.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Mike McCarty wrote: > I don't like a separate swap partition, because it's difficult to > resize, and the information I have is that with 2.6 kernels a swap file > is as fast as a separate partition, and much easier to resize. Interesting. I've never had to resize a swap partition. I generally start a new system using a commercial distro and just let it use the default size for a swap partition. My current systems have swap size the same a RAM size. You do know that you can use both a swap partition and a swap file at the same time, right? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Andrew Benton wrote: > On 04/03/10 20:13, Mike McCarty wrote: > >> Andrew Benton wrote: >> >> >>> I use one partition for both /home and /boot. IE, /boot is a symbolic link >>> pointing at /home/boot >>> >> Why not just use an ordinary directory for /boot, then? Is >> there something I don't know? >> > > I keep my kernel in /home/boot, along with all grub's files, so that if I > boot into one > LFS partition or the other I can use the same kernel and I never need to use > grub to rewrite > the MBR > > Andy > I don't understand how that helps I use a boot partition and this layout $ ls /boot LFS-6.5/ Slack-x86-crypt/ Slackware-13.0-x86/ grub/ lost+found/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Mike McCarty wrote: > > >> I don't like a separate swap partition, because it's difficult to >> resize, and the information I have is that with 2.6 kernels a swap file >> is as fast as a separate partition, and much easier to resize. >> > > Interesting. I've never had to resize a swap partition. I generally > start a new system using a commercial distro and just let it use the > default size for a swap partition. My current systems have swap size > the same a RAM size. > > You do know that you can use both a swap partition and a swap file at > the same time, right? > >-- Bruce > You can also split up the swap partition over multiple drive ( If you have them ) and the kernel will strip the writes to the different drives something like raid does. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>> I don't like a separate swap partition, because it's difficult to
>> resize, and the information I have is that with 2.6 kernels a swap file
>> is as fast as a separate partition, and much easier to resize.
>
> Interesting. I've never had to resize a swap partition. I generally
I have. Some day, you might.
> start a new system using a commercial distro and just let it use the
> default size for a swap partition. My current systems have swap size
> the same a RAM size.
>
> You do know that you can use both a swap partition and a swap file at
> the same time, right?
Yes. However, if a file is as good as a partition, then I see no
need for both, or even for the partition at all.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Baho Utot wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> I keep my kernel in /home/boot, along with all grub's files, so that if I
>> boot into one
>> LFS partition or the other I can use the same kernel and I never need to use
>> grub to rewrite
>> the MBR
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
> I don't understand how that helps
He was reacting to the question of why one would use
/home/boot as opposed to simply /boot as a regular directory
(not a mount point for a paritition).
> I use a boot partition and this layout
>
> $ ls /boot
> LFS-6.5/ Slack-x86-crypt/ Slackware-13.0-x86/ grub/ lost+found/
If /boot is an ordinary directory under /, and not a mount point,
then one needs to modify the MBR to point to the place to find
the boot record.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:13 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Does the build partition really need to be 10G? Would 5G be enough > to build a new BLFS with smallish desktop, like fluxbox, not a big > GNOME or KDE? If so, then /home could grow by another 10G, which > would be nice. 5Gb should be fine - I've just done a clean build on my system, and the root partition is at about 3.5Gb used. That's with LFS, Xorg, and a full Gnome desktop. Simon. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:13 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Does the build partition really need to be 10G? Would 5G be enough
>> to build a new BLFS with smallish desktop, like fluxbox, not a big
>> GNOME or KDE? If so, then /home could grow by another 10G, which
>> would be nice.
>
> 5Gb should be fine - I've just done a clean build on my system, and the
> root partition is at about 3.5Gb used. That's with LFS, Xorg, and a full
> Gnome desktop.
Great! However, is that the max that was needed during the build?
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Mike McCarty wrote: > Baho Utot wrote: [putolin] I use a boot partition and this layout >> $ ls /boot >> LFS-6.5/ Slack-x86-crypt/ Slackware-13.0-x86/ grub/ lost+found/ >> > > If /boot is an ordinary directory under /, and not a mount point, > then one needs to modify the MBR to point to the place to find > the boot record. > > Mike > Only the first time it is set up. Never on updates. All that you have to modify menu.lst. The way I have it you have all the boot stuff in one place. I also don't mount the boot partition from the fstab $( it is not necessary ). That way if you do an update the update can not clobber the others. You do have to then move the updated files to the boot partition though. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
On 05/03/10 00:11, Baho Utot wrote: > Andrew Benton wrote: >> I keep my kernel in /home/boot, along with all grub's files, so that if I >> boot into one >> LFS partition or the other I can use the same kernel and I never need to use >> grub to rewrite >> the MBR >> > I don't understand how that helps > It just reduces the number of partitions by 1. I use the same partition for /home and /boot and use it to store all the files that are independent of the different LFS installs I have Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Baho Utot wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Baho Utot wrote:
> [putolin]
>
> I use a boot partition and this layout
>>> $ ls /boot
>>> LFS-6.5/ Slack-x86-crypt/ Slackware-13.0-x86/ grub/ lost+found/
>>>
>> If /boot is an ordinary directory under /, and not a mount point,
>> then one needs to modify the MBR to point to the place to find
>> the boot record.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> Only the first time it is set up. Never on updates.
Perhaps I haven't made clear what my understanding was.
If /boot is an ordinary directory, then one appears in each
of the "/" partitions, and that's the point of not doing so,
but rather making /boot in each of the / partitions be a link
to the one in /home/boot. Since /home is only one partition,
then there is only one "real" /boot.
If each partition has it's own /boot which is an ordinary
directory, and not a mount point or link to another ordinary
directory in another mounted partition, then you'd have to
modify the MBR to point to the appropriate /boot in order
to load the GRUB which is set up to use that partition.
> All that you have to modify menu.lst.
> The way I have it you have all the boot stuff in one place.
> I also don't mount the boot partition from the fstab $( it is not
> necessary ).
> That way if you do an update the update can not clobber the others.
> You do have to then move the updated files to the boot partition though.
>
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
It's all a matter of taste. You could put an extra buck to get an other disk on the secondary ide controller. hda 40g hdb cdrom hdc 40g (might be something else) hdd cdrom With only 192mb RAM and LFS in mind, you'll need lots of swap; the magnitude being around 2.5gb. For this purpose, the partition layout would then become: hda1100Mext2 hda510G raid (md0) hda610G raid (md1) hda719G raid (md2) hda21.2Gswap hdc510G raid (md0) hdc610G raid (md1) hdc719G raid (md2) hdc11.3Gswap If you like the red color, you use a single boot partition. But if dark green is more amongst your taste, you might simply clone the partition scheme from hda to hdc, thus ending with 2 boot space, one at the begining of each disk. Of course, we don't know when something is going to mess up with the MBR of a drive and why it could happens. Still, when it does happen we bang our heads on the keyboard telling ourselves "why did'nt I set my second drive bootable?" prtnsizemount point --- hda1100M/boot hdc1100M/boot (backup) md0 20G / (main) md1 20G / (build) md2 38G /home hda21.2Gswap hdc21.2Gswap Considering raid 0 in such a config, your hedgehog is going to hop around like a mid-aged rabbit. You can afford the few cpu cycles for almost twice the throughtput to your disk accesses. After all, if building LFS deals with 2G of swap at some points in spacetime, you'll gain a smile with (almost) twice the speed. Same goes to compressing/decompressing archives like everything else. The above example uses raid0, striping for speed. If your needs are different, you could use the same logic to build a raid1 mirror. Building raid array is quite simple for its benifits. All you need is "mdadm", availlable right from the knoppix prompt, with sufficient help. mdadm is also easily built on LFS. When the array is first created with "mdadm --build", the partition holds its configuration data and is magically recognized by a kernel with proper modules built-in. There was some work in kernel to allow md partitioning. So one might look into something more elegant. For the swap file vs partition debate, I'd stick with the partition and use a file if needs be. The swap is accessed in a raid manner when spawned across multiple disk partitions. For the /boot matter, it is required when / is mounted in some esoteric fashion, raid being an example. Finally, I'd first get a good secondary drive then would partition as follow: prtnsizemp type -- #hda1100M/boot raid 1 #hda2 19G /home raid 1 hda3 20G / ext3 hda41.2Gswap #hdc1100M/boot raid 1 #hdc2 19G /home raid 1 hdc3 20G / ext3 hdc41.2Gswap md0 100M /boot ext2 md1 20G /home ext3 The day your disk die, you may simply move /home around, building a stripe for it then set it back. After this, you'll have to make good use of your optical drives for backup. The basic idea is to have a boot, minimum 2 partitions and a swap on each disks. Everything else is like choosing the song on a jukebox. Dominic. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
Mike McCarty wrote: > Baho Utot wrote: > >> Mike McCarty wrote: >> >>> Baho Utot wrote: >>> >> [putolin] >> >> I use a boot partition and this layout >> $ ls /boot LFS-6.5/ Slack-x86-crypt/ Slackware-13.0-x86/ grub/ lost+found/ >>> If /boot is an ordinary directory under /, and not a mount point, >>> then one needs to modify the MBR to point to the place to find >>> the boot record. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >> Only the first time it is set up. Never on updates. >> > > Perhaps I haven't made clear what my understanding was. > > If /boot is an ordinary directory, then one appears in each > of the "/" partitions, and that's the point of not doing so, > but rather making /boot in each of the / partitions be a link > to the one in /home/boot. Since /home is only one partition, > then there is only one "real" /boot. > > So as my setup, I just do it it a more standard way. BTW I understand your method. > If each partition has it's own /boot which is an ordinary > directory, and not a mount point or link to another ordinary > directory in another mounted partition, then you'd have to > modify the MBR to point to the appropriate /boot in order > to load the GRUB which is set up to use that partition. > > Not so. I have one point a boot partition that works/serves 3 installs $(currently), when I add a fourth all that needs to be done is to add a directory in /boot $(partition), add the kernel files for the install and add an entry to menu.lst. I never have to change the master boot record or "install"/rerun grub. it's always "in the same place", it never changes. This current running system ( Slackware 12-2 ) has this in fstab: ~$ cat /etc/fstab /dev/md1 swap swapdefaults,noatime 0 0 /dev/mapper/root /jfs defaults,noatime 1 1 devpts /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 proc /procprocdefaults 0 0 tmpfs/dev/shm tmpfs defaults,size=256M 0 0 tmpfs /tmptmpfs defaults,nodev,nosuid,mode=1777,size=256M 0 0 this is the result of ~$ ls /boot ~$ Notice that it is empty, there are no files there. I just leave the /boot filesystem $( on the root filesystem ) there in case I need to work on it, I just mount it when I need to. Notice that the fstab does not have the boot partition mounted. You don't need to. Once the system has booted /boot has done its work. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 23:38 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Simon Geard wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:13 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > >> Does the build partition really need to be 10G? Would 5G be enough > >> to build a new BLFS with smallish desktop, like fluxbox, not a big > >> GNOME or KDE? If so, then /home could grow by another 10G, which > >> would be nice. > > > > 5Gb should be fine - I've just done a clean build on my system, and the > > root partition is at about 3.5Gb used. That's with LFS, Xorg, and a full > > Gnome desktop. > > Great! However, is that the max that was needed during the build? No idea, but if that full installation comes in at 3.6Gb, it's unlikely that any single package would have pushed it over 5Gb during build. Assuming you're not doing the builds somewhere under /home anyway... Simon. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Partition Sizes, AGAIN!
On 06/03/10 05:10, Simon Geard wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 23:38 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: >> Great! However, is that the max that was needed during the build? > > No idea, but if that full installation comes in at 3.6Gb, it's unlikely > that any single package would have pushed it over 5Gb during build. > Assuming you're not doing the builds somewhere under /home anyway... > On my system the largest package is gcc which needs about 1.2G for all the source. I compile in /tmp which has a tmpfs mounted on it. I set the tmpfs' size at 2G to be safe and make sure I have a swap partition available on systems with less than 4G of ram. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
