[ILUG] Is the disk usage really this low?

[Timothy Murphy]

On Saturday 22 December 2007 12:48:17 am Darragh wrote:

> Would it be safe to use a partitioning scheme like the following?
> /boot 500MB
> /2GB
> /var/2GB
> /usr/3GB
> /home  ..... the rest.

Didn't you have 100GB on the disk?
The allocation above seems a bit mean to me ...
Except for boot, which I don't think needs to be more than 100MB.

I have 15GB in / on my laptop under Fedora-8,
and I don't think I have done anything much except dowloading packages.
Admittedly this contains /usr and /var (but not /home).

> My only concern is that this partition layout doesn't leave much space for
> expansion of the system or the services it provides.

It might be worth looking at LVM,
which is supposed to allow you to increase and decrease partition sizes
without too much difficulty.
(I use LVM, but have not needed to change the LVM partition sizes to date.)

> And finally:
> Is the order that these partitions are created still something to keep in
> mind?

I don't think the order matters at all.
If you do use LVM, I don't think /boot can be an LVM partition.

> When creating a boot partition I always choose ext2 as from what I gather,
> it has less file checking capabilities however it is also more lightweight
> and is a better choice than EXT3 for a partition that's this small.  Is my
> understanding of this wrong? If not, should all other partitions be
> created using EXT3 or are there other file systems that would work better
> for specific functions E.G. /var for logs.
> If more file systems are used on a system won't more modules be loaded
> into memory? Ok, the resources these modules use is probably very
> insignificant however could the speed or potential benefit of using a
> different file system be negated by loading a module to support it?

Personally, I use EXT3 for everything.
But I'm no guru.
I never heard the argument you give to use EXT2 for /boot.
I can't believe it makes much difference.