Arch Linux

Zepp

Member

From: Ontario, Canada

Registered: 2006-03-25

Posts: 334

Website

Re: Suggested Partitioning Scheme

When you say "DE" you mean like Gnome or KDE?

I had those two in mind. But the general point I was trying to make is if you run all those sorts of resource intensive applications on arch as you do ubuntu you likely won't notice any speed difference. Now if you instead decide you no longer want to use gnome and go for say xfce or maybe even just a WM and some small apps then yes you may notice a difference but then that isn't a fair comparison of distro speed.

zephyrus17

Member

Registered: 2008-06-15

Posts: 323

Re: Suggested Partitioning Scheme

Hmmm.. Since I have x64, I'll give it a shot. Thanks, guys!

JeremyTheWicked

Member

From: Poland

Registered: 2008-05-23

Posts: 193

Re: Suggested Partitioning Scheme

I think the main reason why Arch (or any KISS distro, Gentoo etc, for that matter) seems to be faster than more "user friendly" distributions like Ubuntu, openSUSE, FedoraCore etc. is because you start off minimalistic and only install the things you really need (hopefully ) whereas in the "friendly" distros you start out with a lot of crap preloaded (like, say, Bluetooth drivers you'll never use etc.) which slows your system down.

---

arch(3) adj amused because you think you understand something better than other people ;P

Zepp

Member

From: Ontario, Canada

Registered: 2006-03-25

Posts: 334

Website

Re: Suggested Partitioning Scheme

I think the main reason why Arch (or any KISS distro, Gentoo etc, for that matter) seems to be faster than more "user friendly" distributions like Ubuntu, openSUSE, FedoraCore etc. is because you start off minimalistic and only install the things you really need (hopefully ) whereas in the "friendly" distros you start out with a lot of crap preloaded (like, say, Bluetooth drivers you'll never use etc.) which slows your system down.

Exactly.

SyXbiT

Member

From: Seattle, WA

Registered: 2008-06-28

Posts: 177

Website

Re: Suggested Partitioning Scheme

/ 10GB
/home rest

don't see why i should have a separate /boot. unless someone can convince me

violagirl23

Member

Registered: 2008-01-24

Posts: 184

Re: Suggested Partitioning Scheme

I think it's a lot easier to isolate a problem when you have separate partitions. About a month ago Arch wouldn't boot unless I did a manual fsck (the automatic -p option had failed) and it ended up totally messing up everything. I only have a swap and / partition, so I had NO idea where everything that got messed up was. Now I'm going to have to end up reinstalling. If I had had more partitions, the problem would probably only have been on one of them and far more easy to isolate and maybe fix if it were not in a crucial area. But now I'm hosed. I'm convinced! Partitioning is the way to go!

---

"You can't just ask to borrow somebody else's lampshade. It's AWKWARD!"

iBertus

Member

From: Greenville, NC

Registered: 2004-11-04

Posts: 2,228

Re: Suggested Partitioning Scheme

Update: I've not switched to using lvm2 on all of my systems. This allows me to have a proper 'partitioning' scheme without having to have a complex disk layout. I've got a /, swap, and lvm partition on each of my drives. My first HDD has a 250GB Vista Ultimate 64 partition that is at the rear of the drive (1TB drive). Each of the linux partitions are linked in some type of RAID. RAID1 for the one that GRUB needs to access, and RAID10 for the rest.

zephyrus17

Member

Registered: 2008-06-15

Posts: 323

Re: Suggested Partitioning Scheme

How exactly do I use this LVM2? I have all my Arch partitions in a logical partition. That means I can use an LVM2 on it, right?