Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

Thalskarth · 2008-12-02 15:00:32

Hi, i have been using Ubuntu for a while, and now i want to move to Arch. I've probed it in a PC and i like so i want to make que change.

But, before installing Arch, I have 2 doubts. I red the beginners guide and also the instalation guide. There it says that if better to have diferents partitions for /, /boot/, /home, /usr, /var, y /tmp

Usually, i alwayes used something like this:

* /boot (32megas)
* /swap (512 megas)
* /root (6 a 8 gigas)
* /home (80 gigas aprox)

It's really better to also have partitions for /var, /usr y /tmp? o some of them? and, in that case, wich size should i give them? because i don't want to make them too small, but i don't want to waste disk space neither.

Adn that takes me to my second question, wich filesystem is better for each partitionn? in many places, i read taht JFS its good for /var or that XFS if better for /home and big files

I thinked to use something like this:

* /boot (ext2)
* / (JFS)
* swap
* /home (XFS)

Is a good design? or should i use other filesystem like reiserfs, etc... and for /var, /usr and /tmp partition, wich one should i use?

Thank you

Ps: This Pc is gonna be a desktop pc

Ps2: sorry for my bad english. it is not my real lenguage

Reason of edit: added the swap partition. I forgot it

Last edited by Thalskarth (2008-12-21 20:11:00)

amranu · 2008-12-02 15:10:50

No, I have /, /boot/, /home and a swap partition (as well as a windows partition)

So that's fine.

I have no idea about better filesystems, all my partitions are ext3 (soon to be ext4)

kaola_linux · 2008-12-02 16:17:56

This would also be ok

/(ext3, reiserfs, etc.)
/home(ext3, reiserfs, etc.)
/boot (ext2)
/var (reiserfs)

ReiserFs - would be better for your /var for it contains alot of small files and reiserfs handles small files well compared to ext3.
Ext3 - good for huge partitions (80gb or more) and handles large files well.

@Thalskarth - it's better to have /var especially if you're using ext3 or other filesystems which was designed for larger files as your partition for /home and /. Having a seperate partition for /var would be nice (backup purposes and reinstalling without downloading the entire package whole over again). 5gb would be sufficient for your /var, anyway you can always resize it to your needs.

Sorry for not mentioning other filesystems because I haven't tried them yet...:D
Hope that helps

Inxsible · 2008-12-02 17:27:10

About your question on which file system is better suited for different partitions - this is a copy paste of the relevant info from one of the threads that I replied in quite some time back

1) /boot - this partition is changed only if there are kernel updates and you need to change the menu.lst file. Since writes to this are relatively less, the fragmentation is also minimal - if any, so you don't really need the journalling capabilities of EXT3. Ext2, unlike EXT3, does not give automatic fscking...but considering that this partition is always small (mine is 128MB - with only 11 MB used) the fscking is always fast too..in case there is some problem.
The beginners guide suggests a boot partition of 32 MB - but I keep it at 128 in case I install multiple kernels etc. - i guess 64MB would do too
2) /var - this partition usually contains a large number of files which are very small in size. This is true for all distros but more so for Arch. reiserfs is known to have better performance in such a scenario as opposed to ext3 or others. There are many threads on this forum as well as others which confirm that after the op changed it to reiserfs - their installing has become faster.
3) other partitions - Here you have a choice - I use EXT3 because I have been using EXT2 since I first installed linux and most ppl at that time used ext2 - which graduated to ext3. Lot of people also use XFS which is known to have better performance with huge files. I think EXT3 offers a good balance...because I am never sure whether my home partition will have all huge files or not..same with my external drive...so i just use EXT3
If you have a specific partition for movies or some video/audio editing that you do..you may wanna consider XFS too. I don't do all that...so I have never used XFS. I wouldn't know the exact performance difference between ext3 and XFS.
One thing that makes me wanna keep EXT3 is that EXT4 is coming out (soon?) and you can upgrade from 3 to 4 without having to reformat and having to make backups of your current data.

Last edited by Inxsible (2008-12-02 17:28:00)

string · 2008-12-02 17:59:18

Here's *my* desktop setup:

$ df -h
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda6             471M  219M  228M  50% /
/dev/sda7              61M   14M   45M  23% /boot
/dev/sda8             471M  314M  133M  71% /opt
/dev/sda9             471M   11M  437M   3% /tmp
/dev/sda10            2.9G  1.7G  1.1G  63% /usr
/dev/sda11            1.9G  800M  1.1G  44% /var <--- ~ 700M in /var/cache/pacman/pkg
/dev/sda12            115G  3.0G  106G   3% /home

+ /dev/sda5 (swap) :: 1 GB

My 'manually installed' groups/packages:

base
base-devel
gnome
gnome-extra
xorg
---
alsa-utils
firefox
flashplugin
mpd
mplayer
ncmpc
openntpd
openoffice-base
pidgin
terminus-font
transmission-gtk
vim

Hope that helps.

Note: I run `pacman -Sc` regularly.

Last edited by string (2008-12-02 18:01:43)

markisthejob · 2008-12-02 18:18:29

My partitions are similar to Thalskarth's .I didnt bother making anymore partitions when I installed arch.I didnt think it would make much difference.Was i wrong?

/ (7.5G Ext2)
/home (67G Ext3)
/boot 38MB Ext2)
/Swap (512MB)

Last edited by markisthejob (2008-12-02 18:19:03)

Thalskarth · 2008-12-02 19:43:47

thanks everybody for the help,

kaola_linux wrote:

@Thalskarth - it's better to have /var especially if you're using ext3 or other filesystems which was designed for larger files as your partition for /home and /. Having a seperate partition for /var would be nice (backup purposes and reinstalling without downloading the entire package whole over again). 5gb would be sufficient for your /var, anyway you can always resize it to your needs.

so, a 5gb partition in reiserfs would be OK for a /var

Inxsible wrote:

Lot of people also use XFS which is known to have better performance with huge files. I think EXT3 offers a good balance...because I am never sure whether my home partition will have all huge files or not..same with my external drive...so i just use EXT3
If you have a specific partition for movies or some video/audio editing that you do..you may wanna consider XFS too. I don't do all that...so I have never used XFS. I wouldn't know the exact performance difference between ext3 and XFS.

Yes, in many places i red that XFS is better for big files. But i couldn't fine wich is the meaning of "big file". Does it mean a 200 mg file? or a 4.4gb one??
the same applies to reiserFs, what is a small file? a 1mg one or a 4kb one?

I have alwayes used ext3, i thinked in XFS and JFS just to give them a try.

amranu wrote:

I have no idea about better filesystems, all my partitions are ext3 (soon to be ext4)

Inxsible wrote:

One thing that makes me wanna keep EXT3 is that EXT4 is coming out (soon?) and you can upgrade from 3 to 4 without having to reformat and having to make backups of your current data.

really is cominf soon? i didn't think in ext4 beacuse many places said that was in development for many years... meybe they were a bit out-of-date

Edit: i search in the wiki and it says that since 11 october 2008, ext4 is "stable" and is been included since kernel 2.6.28 as stable realase, is to early to prove it? or it better to wait a while??

thanks.

and, does anyone try the JFS one?

Last edited by Thalskarth (2008-12-03 00:14:56)

Nezmer · 2008-12-02 20:14:04

I use Ext3 for root . XFS for home and storage partitions .

Ext3 is the safest choice . XFS is the best for your torrent downloads

Thalskarth · 2008-12-03 21:09:58

Nezmer wrote:

I use Ext3 for root . XFS for home and storage partitions .
Ext3 is the safest choice . XFS is the best for your torrent downloads

so XFS is good for mi home.

So, it's good a table like this, isn't:

/boot (32 mg - ext2)
/swap (512 mg)
/root (JFS - 7gb)
/var (ReiserFS - 5gb)
/home (XFS - 80 gb)

Profjim · 2008-12-21 15:40:46

Thalskarth wrote:

/boot (32 mg - ext2)
/swap (512 mg)
/root (JFS - 7gb)
/var (ReiserFS - 5gb)
/home (XFS - 80 gb)

I think you realize this, but / and /root are separate creatures. Everywhere you say /root, I think you mean /. (What may be confusing you is that the common name for '/' is 'my root directory'.)

/swap = 512 MB is probably fine if (1) you've got enough physical ram for your purposes (e.g., if you've got say 2 GB RAM that's probably enough for most purposes), AND (2) you never intend to hibernate your machine. Hibernating requires at least as much swap space as you've got physical RAM, and many people advise an extra 10% or so. Suspending to ram doesn't use swap space; only hibernating to disk.

It's possible to suspend/hibernate a desktop machine, but people are most usually interested in doing that on laptops. So if you don't have a laptop, or you're intending only ever to use suspend to ram, and never hibernate to disk, and you have enough physical memory for your purposes, then a small swap partition is fine.

windtalker · 2008-12-21 18:48:01

From my own experiences.
Boot is a given, you need it.
I woud put swap next for a good reason.
It does speed your system up to a degree.
Unless you're going to be using a lot of graphics intensive processes, I wouldn't make it more than 512 megs to 1 gig.
/ is also a given and needed.
I would make it either ext 2 or 3.
I've had problems with rfs in the past.
My hd scanned for bad blocks with rfs on it and when reformatted to ext3, it was fine.
I've also had a 13 year old here who feels he is a pc genius and powered the pc down with the power button, "because it's faster" and I had a hosed system with rfs.
From then on I stick with ext 3.
/home isn't necessary but can be useful as at times you can repair or reinstall / and still have everything you added in /home safe and sound.

Thalskarth · 2008-12-21 20:10:42

Profjim wrote:

I think you realize this, but / and /root are separate creatures. Everywhere you say /root, I think you mean /. (What may be confusing you is that the common name for '/' is 'my root directory'.)

yes you are rigth, i was trying to say "/"

thank every one for the help

Arch Linux

#1 2008-12-02 15:00:32

Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

#2 2008-12-02 15:10:50

Re: Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

#3 2008-12-02 16:17:56

Re: Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

#4 2008-12-02 17:27:10

Re: Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

#5 2008-12-02 17:59:18

Re: Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

#6 2008-12-02 18:18:29

Re: Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

#7 2008-12-02 19:43:47

Re: Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

#8 2008-12-02 20:14:04

Re: Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

#9 2008-12-03 21:09:58

Re: Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

#10 2008-12-21 15:40:46

Re: Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

#11 2008-12-21 18:48:01

Re: Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

#12 2008-12-21 20:10:42

Re: Help with partitions and file systems [SOLVED]

Board footer