partition new PC's drive
samuel heinrich
2.1 GB PCI Enhanced IDE hard disk drive w/mode 4.
I read that dosemu won't show accurate drive locations if
linux isn't on the first partition. That doesn't seem like
a big deal. Any other reasons to start with a Linux partition?
Sam Heinrich
KAZ Vorpal
>)What's a good partitioning method for use on a brand new PC.
>)2.1 GB PCI Enhanced IDE hard disk drive w/mode 4.
>)I read that dosemu won't show accurate drive locations if
>)linux isn't on the first partition. That doesn't seem like
>)a big deal. Any other reasons to start with a Linux partition?
I don't know if I've ever had linux on the first partition until
recently. I have DOS on hda1 on the main system here, for example. It
never seemed to bother dosemu at all...
--
Words of the Sentient:
In America sex is an obsession, in other parts of the world it is a fact.
--Marlene Dietrich
Jim Kingdon
You make it sound like you already know how many partitions and how
big, but since I'm going to be doing that soon, I wouldn't mind a
little discussion of that if anyone wants to.
My drive is 1.2G and my thinking is:
60M swap partition
200M for installing Win95 when/if I want to.
600M linux root
340M linux ext2 (for storing non-system files; could be used for
installing another version of linux or some such if needed).
If you are going to be running memory-hungry programs like X, emacs,
Mosaic, and gcc, you will want to make sure you have plenty of swap
space. Currently I have 50M which has been fine, but I figure I might
as well allow somewhat more than I think I'll need.
Przemek Klosowski
What's a good partitioning method for use on a brand new PC.
2.1 GB PCI Enhanced IDE hard disk drive w/mode 4.
I read that dosemu won't show accurate drive locations if
linux isn't on the first partition. That doesn't seem like
a big deal. Any other reasons to start with a Linux partition?
I haven't heard about such dosemu problem. I like to partition my
drives as follows: I have 4 primary partitions, respectively: DOS
(100-400MB), linux root (small, say 40MB, but it has to fall under
1024 cylinder boundary), linux swap (say 30MB) and the rest of the
disk goes to Linux.
This way, both DOS and Linux root partitions fall under the 1024 mark
which makes it easy on DOS and LILO.
--
przemek klosowski (prz...@nist.gov)
Reactor Division (bldg. 235), E111
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA
Joseph J Klemmer
: > What's a good partitioning method for use on a brand new PC.
: You make it sound like you already know how many partitions and how
: big, but since I'm going to be doing that soon, I wouldn't mind a
: little discussion of that if anyone wants to.
: My drive is 1.2G and my thinking is:
: 60M swap partition
If you have 16meg or RAM or more then you really shouldn't need more
than a 16 or 20 meg partition here. (Unless you plan on doing some major
kernel hacking or dbms development).
: 200M for installing Win95 when/if I want to.
: 600M linux root
: 340M linux ext2 (for storing non-system files; could be used for
: installing another version of linux or some such if needed).
If you plan on actually using or keeping the Linux stuff updated then
you should think about having many partitions/filesystems for the Linux
side. My system is setup like this:
40 meg for /
350 meg for /usr
100 meg for /usr/local
100 meg for /usr/src
450 meg for /home
If I were to do it over again I'd put /var on it's own fs with atleast 50meg
or more (since I'm not doing news).
Joe
---
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."
-- Andrew Jackson
samuel heinrich
kin...@harvey.cyclic.com (Jim Kingdon) writes:
>> What's a good partitioning method for use on a brand new PC.
>> 2.1 GB PCI Enhanced IDE hard disk drive w/mode 4.
>60M swap partition
>200M for installing Win95 when/if I want to.
>600M linux root
>340M linux ext2 (for storing non-system files; could be used for
>installing another version of linux or some such if needed).
>
>Mosaic, and gcc, you will want to make sure you have plenty of swap
>space. Currently I have 50M which has been fine, but I figure I might
>as well allow somewhat more than I think I'll need.
I've read some partitioning schemes in other Linux newsgroups.
Some describe no swap. Some describe 7-8 different linux
partitions. Some, for example in the second response I
received to my original post, describe a small root partition.
My concept so far is to keep it simple, much like the four
partition system listed above. I had thought a fourth
partition coule be used for windowsNT or another linux
distribution (Slackware being my primary choice). The new
PC is coming with 32 Mb of RAM and I had been planning on
matching that with about 32 Mb of swap partition. However,
I do want to run emacs and Mosaic, and I run X and have run
gcc, and sometimes run programs like Xfishtank and Xsnow,
so perhaps ~60 Mb swap is a better choice.
With respect to a small root partition, I don't know why I
would want one. Is it a method of protecting the root files
or is it used for sharing programs and libraries between
different linux distributions such as RedHat or Debian?
More space will be nice. My current system is:
12M swap
88M linux root /
125 linux /usr
181 /dosc
I had thought that 100M would be enough for linux. In
pretty short order I set up another 125 for Linux and,
with 12M of RAM, the 12M swap has been pegged full on
too many occasions.
Thanks,
Sam Heinrich opinions my own
klaatu
>
> > What's a good partitioning method for use on a brand new PC.
> > 2.1 GB PCI Enhanced IDE hard disk drive w/mode 4.
>
> big, but since I'm going to be doing that soon, I wouldn't mind a
> little discussion of that if anyone wants to.
>
> My drive is 1.2G and my thinking is:
>
> 200M for installing Win95 when/if I want to.
> 600M linux root
> 340M linux ext2 (for storing non-system files; could be used for
> installing another version of linux or some such if needed).
>
> If you are going to be running memory-hungry programs like X, emacs,
> Mosaic, and gcc, you will want to make sure you have plenty of swap
> space. Currently I have 50M which has been fine, but I figure I might
> as well allow somewhat more than I think I'll need.
You might as well do that. Here's my partitioning scheme, which started out
as an outgrowth of a simple partitioning of a 340 meg Maxtor.
Note that all Linux is Slackware, originally 1.2.8 but now is 3.0 ELF
Used FIPS after a Norton Speed Disk defrag, partitioning the drive into about
170meg MS-DOS, remainder also MS-DOS.
Used the Slackware install diskettes to run Linux fdisk, repartitioning the
second partition from MS-DOS into a 20meg linux-swap, remainder linux-native.
Installed Slackware. Quickly ran out of space.
Bought Western Digital Caviar 850. Used AMIBIOS setup utility to autodetect
and mount the drive. Used Linux 'fdisk' to mount and partition the 840 as
follows.
first partition, /dev/hdb1/ mounts 200meg MS-DOS
remaining three partitions all linux-native
/dev/hdb2 mounts /usr/
/dev/hdb3 mounts /home/
/dev/hdb4 mounts /usr/X11R6/
This apparently haphazard scheme has some advantages.
First, as I add more drives, it'll be easy to simply copy partitions onto new
drives.
Secondly, and more importantly, for each operating system, I have the
swapspace mounted on the other drive. When I first formatted the MS-DOS
partition on the second drive, I ran windows from the main dos drive (c:\, or
/dev/hda1 from linux) and set my virtual-memory swapspace as the very first
thing on the very first partition of the other harddrive. Thus, in windows,
if I get out of the 16meg of realRAM into virtual memory (rare), I'm running
wares out of one drive and swapping to another. In Linux, while the system
files are on the first drive, most of the applications I run and all of the
networking stuff is on the second drive, and thus any swapmemory needs are
met by the partition on the first drive. No matter the operating system, I've
got two drives working.
If you start doing memory-hogger stuff like massive compiles, this greatly
cuts down on wear and tear on the drives. You get a lot less thrashing.
As for filesystems, it's all ext2. There is no advantage of which I am aware
for any other scheme. Just be sure to get your maximum inode density (1024,
probably) when you format under Linux setup.
Have fun. Oh, you might want to consider adding a lot of smaller drives, each
with its own mount point as above, you will get a much faster system that
way.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, | "When the going gets wierd the weird turn pro."
even though they be | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/home.html
transgenic chimerae. | Now. Chock full of uninteresting links.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Sarah Connor?"
Jim Kingdon
> would want one. Is it a method of protecting the root files
I believe that the rationale is that if some data is lost (e.g. due to
hardware failure) in a non-root partition, you can still boot the
system and fix it without having to completely reinstall. The other
reason is if you want to make /usr read-only (e.g. NFS mounted and
shared between machines).
> with 12M of RAM, the 12M swap has been pegged full on
> too many occasions.
If your disk is already partitioned, just add a swap file. The
purists will complain, but the performance hit doesn't seem too bad
(not that I tried to measure it). Of course, it doesn't sound like
you have enough disk space for a swap file either, but
dc.org.linux-users is unable to help you with that.....
Przemek Klosowski
distribution (Slackware being my primary choice). The new
PC is coming with 32 Mb of RAM and I had been planning on
matching that with about 32 Mb of swap partition. However,
I do want to run emacs and Mosaic, and I run X and have run
gcc, and sometimes run programs like Xfishtank and Xsnow,
so perhaps ~60 Mb swap is a better choice.
32MB of ram is plenty---and I don't think that more than 32MB of
permanent swap is really necessary. You see, having it implies that
you actually use it---remember that IDE disk speeds are 4-16 MB/s
(realistically probably closer to 4), so if you need to swap, it is
going to be a frustrating experience. Remember that memory is like
sex---it should be real, not faked.
Moreover, it doesn't make sense to allocate tons of swap 'in case';
if you need some extra space, you can always create a swap file in
your regular filesystem:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/swapfile bs=1000k count=20
mkswap /swapfile
swapon /swapfile
With respect to a small root partition, I don't know why I
would want one. Is it a method of protecting the root files
or is it used for sharing programs and libraries between
The primary reason to have a small root partition is to ensure
that the kernel image it contains is located below 1024-cylinder
boundary (by placing the whole partition below that mark).
Jim Kingdon
> permanent swap is really necessary. You see, having it implies that
> you actually use it---remember that IDE disk speeds are 4-16 MB/s
> (realistically probably closer to 4), so if you need to swap, it is
> going to be a frustrating experience.
Well, except that on most systems some programs will end up being
more-or-less permanently swapped out. This is particularly true if
you are using xterm (1.5M only some 200K of which ends up being
resident, even if you are using the window), but even with rxvt there
might be some windows which you hardly ever use.
Granted, using my machine is sometimes a frustrating experience. And
I rarely use all 60M of swap--32M quite possibly would have been
enough (16M was *not*). I have 16M of RAM. I would dearly love to
have less memory-hungry alternatives to emacs, X, and Mosaic, but I'm
not aware of anything with similar functionality. And it just isn't
possible to keep all three in 16M of physical RAM at once.
The main reason I allocated 60M of swap is that the extra disk space
is no big deal for me--my 1.2G drive is half empty--and swap
partitions do give better performance than swap files. But if you are
concerned about space, 60M is probably overkill.
> Remember that memory is like sex---it should be real, not faked.
:-). Like the quote from linus which was going around the FSF
conference in February--"software is like sex--it is better when it is
free."
samuel heinrich
prz...@rrdjazz.nist.gov (Przemek Klosowski) writes:
>if you need some extra space, you can always create a swap file in
>your regular filesystem:
>
>that the kernel image it contains is located below 1024-cylinder
I appreciate the comments on partitioning. The new PC's status is
that it's been shipped as of 04-12 so it should be here this week.
With 32 Mb RAM and a 2.1 Gb hard drive, I'll probably use fips15
to partition as follows:
~32 Mb swap
~32 Mb /
~01 Gb /usr
remainder msdos.
Pretty basic, but fdisk(s) and fips seem daunting. Do these four
partitions use up all "primary" partitions? Or can I still split
the msdos partition? I've never made an extended partition, and
the msdos manual appears to define that two dos partitions are
required before an extended partition can be made, a primary
partition for system files and a second extended(logical)
partition. Multiple dos partitions is not an immediate concern,
but I wonder what resources I have left if I make the basic four
partition drive listed above.
Is the 32 Mb / partition oversized/undersized? The kernel isn't
that big. It may not be an easy question to answer without knowing
some intended system uses. At some point, probably next weekend,
I'll have to split it and install. Should be fun.
Sam Heinrich
Reinhold J. Gerharz
hein...@uspto.gov (samuel heinrich) wrote:
>What's a good partitioning method for use on a brand new PC.
>2.1 GB PCI Enhanced IDE hard disk drive w/mode 4.
>I read that dosemu won't show accurate drive locations if
>linux isn't on the first partition. That doesn't seem like
>a big deal. Any other reasons to start with a Linux partition?
>Sam Heinrich
Partition IDE with an axe!
Then get SCSI.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may have been posted more than once.
If you don't like it, you are welcome you to complain to the following:
he...@erols.com newsm...@erols.com
Their news servers are, to put it kindly, unreliable. Multiple postings
are the only way to be sure my message goes out, short of changing ISP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Kingdon
> Partition IDE with an axe!
> Then get SCSI.
:-).
Actually, if anyone decides to follow this advice, I'm sure that
someone would be willing to take that ever-so-slightly-used 2G IDE
drive off their hands.
heinrich
> hein...@uspto.gov (samuel heinrich) wrote:
> >What's a good partitioning method foruseonabrandnew PC.
> Partition IDE with an axe!
> Then get SCSI.
I've heard that scsi only gives good bang-for-the-buck on
multi-user systems. If you have some performance comparison
numbers, please post 'em.
fwiw:
I ordered the PC March 16; it arrived 31 days later and had a
bad/incorrect motherboard; the replacement system still hadn't
been built 20 days later because the old model cdrom was out
of stock (@$#$%!@!#$) after the salesman had said that he was
very sure that newer cdrom & motherboard components would be
installed; the company is sending some UPS ARS labels which
will cover shipping the units back.
Terry
heinrich (hein...@pioneer.uspto.gov) wrote:
: > hein...@uspto.gov (samuel heinrich) wrote:
: > >What's a good partitioning method foruseonabrandnew PC.
: > >2.1 GB PCI Enhanced IDE hard disk drive w/mode 4.
: > Partition IDE with an axe!
: > Then get SCSI.
: I've heard that scsi only gives good bang-for-the-buck on
: multi-user systems. If you have some performance comparison
: numbers, please post 'em.
I haven't found that to be the case. I upgraded to SCSI and cut my X
start-up time by a factor of about three. That's on an DX2/80 with 12 MB
of RAM and a bus-mastering SCSI card. Maybe it's because I'm short on
RAM that it made such a difference, but I don't plan to go back anytime
soon. ;^)
Reinhold J. Gerharz
hein...@pioneer.uspto.gov (heinrich) wrote:
>I've heard that scsi only gives good bang-for-the-buck on
>multi-user systems.
benefit. Plus you can plug in a flat-bed scanner, external removable
optical drives, etc.
>If you have some performance comparison
>numbers, please post 'em.
I don't. I take my impressions of computer products to the vendor and
order what I think is best. I cannot afford to buy similar drives on
different interfaces in order to compare them for future reference.
>fwiw:
>I ordered the PC March 16; it arrived 31 days later and had a
>bad/incorrect motherboard; the replacement system still hadn't
>been built 20 days later because the old model cdrom was out
>of stock (@$#$%!@!#$) after the salesman had said that he was
>very sure that newer cdrom & motherboard components would be
>installed; the company is sending some UPS ARS labels which
>will cover shipping the units back.
Would you care to mention the vendor's name?
It can be profitable for a vendor to quote a fixed price, then delay
delivery. For example, I discussed at some length the falling RAM
prices with my vendor. We talked about what affect it would have on
the market and why it took so long for prices to drop. I ended up
ordering some to upgrade 4 PCs. It took nearly two weeks! In two
weeks, the wholesale price must have dropped even more, while the
price I paid stayed the same as was quoted.
I would suspect that the newer motherboard and cdrom cost your vendor
less than the ones he quoted, even though they may out perform the
originals. What do you think?
I wish you luck getting your system,
Reinhold