Recommended partition scheme

beat · 2009-05-24 18:55:19

Okay so I'm new to Archlinux and I'd like you guys to help me out picking up a partition scheme.
I'll be using a 250gb hard drive and the system has 2GB of memory.
I don't think I have a need for any special security measures so I've always used a pretty simple partition scheme (one partition for swap and another one for /), but if there are benefits in using a more complex partition scheme I'm open to trying it. I'd also like to know what file system to use on each partition.

Sorry if my English isn't perfect but it is not my main language, also sorry to bother with such a newbie question but this is the newbie forum after all.

Peasantoid · 2009-05-24 18:58:45

You actually don't even need a swap partition... you can just set up a swap file. The speed difference is negligible if it even exists.

graysky · 2009-05-24 20:18:10

@op - do you plan to keep more than one Linux distro on the system? If not, then a simple scheme is probably fine. If you want others I can elaborate. You might consider a separate /home partition even on a simple scheme. For example:

/ (8-20 gigs)
/swap (2 gigs)
/home (rest of the drive)

Having /home reside on its own partition makes a reinstallation very easy since you can just format/reinstall to the root partition leaving your /home intact.

Last edited by graysky (2009-05-24 20:19:12)

neuwerld · 2009-05-24 20:18:29

I think maybe 15GB for / and maybe 5GB for swap and the rest for /home.
If you dont want to have any other partition I think this is enough.

rusty99 · 2009-05-24 20:18:55

From the wiki, http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beg … ard_Drives

There are several advantages for using discrete filesystems, rather than combining all into one partition:
* Security: Each filesystem may be configured in /etc/fstab as 'nosuid', 'nodev', 'noexec', 'readonly', etc.
* Stability: A user, or malfunctioning program can completely fill a filesystem with garbage if they have write permissions for it. Critical programs, which reside on a different filesystem remain unaffected.
* Speed: A filesystem which gets written to frequently may become somewhat fragmented. (An effective method of avoiding fragmentation is to ensure that each filesystem is never in danger of filling up completely.) Separate filesystems remain unaffected, and each can be defragmented separately as well.
* Integrity: If one filesystem becomes corrupted, separate filesystems remain unaffected.
* Versatility: Sharing data across several systems becomes more expedient when independent filesystems are used. Separate filesystem types may also be chosen based upon the nature of data and usage.

As for what fs on each.. I know it's not much help but it's really down to personal preference.

ogronom · 2009-05-24 22:31:33

You can also separate /usr and experiment with modern (supposably fast) fs there, i.e. ext4, xfs, btrfs(when it will become more stable).
If you lose some information there, it's not critical and can be easily fixed by reinstalling the appropriate package.

Last edited by ogronom (2009-05-24 22:34:42)

graysky · 2009-05-24 22:36:01

@ogronom - xfs and ext4 are both pretty darn mature, no need for experimentation.

beat · 2009-05-24 22:38:16

graysky wrote:

@op - do you plan to keep more than one Linux distro on the system? If not, then a simple scheme is probably fine. If you want others I can elaborate. You might consider a separate /home partition even on a simple scheme. For example:
/ (8-20 gigs)
/swap (2 gigs)
/home (rest of the drive)
Having /home reside on its own partition makes a reinstallation very easy since you can just format/reinstall to the root partition leaving your /home intact.

I won't have any more Linux distros on the system. I think I'm going to stick with ext3 and let ext4 mature a bit more, or is it already flawless?

neuwerld · 2009-05-25 04:46:22

I run ext4 on my partitions since a while now, haven't had any problems with it!
Damn nice

Last edited by neuwerld (2009-05-25 04:46:38)

JawsThemeSwimming428 · 2009-05-25 05:07:08

There is a good article here on how to setup your partition scheme. I used the article's advice and created a separate Data partition so I can access it from anything I have installed or plan to install in the future. Also, it is a good idea so it is completely isolated from the system. Check it out, it's a good read.

http://www.sblinux.org/pages/symlink-home.html

ngoonee · 2009-05-25 05:38:14

Just dropping a note (this is TOTALLY UNTESTED BY ME) concerning mounting /tmp as a really fast filesystem (ReiserFS or something along those lines).

Otherwise, as said before, separate home is basic. I also use a separate Data partition, but that's primarily because I dual-boot.

Synss · 2009-05-25 06:57:44

ngoonee wrote:

Just dropping a note (this is TOTALLY UNTESTED BY ME) concerning mounting /tmp as a really fast filesystem (ReiserFS or something along those lines).

I mount /tmp on tmpfs (i.e., in RAM) together with /var/run and /var/lock. And I would also recommend a simple partition scheme if it is enough for you. 5GB are enough for /usr in my case, that can give you an idea.

However, I personally use LVM2 and like it. But if you have no use for it, again, simple is good.

graysky · 2009-05-25 08:52:32

beat wrote:

I won't have any more Linux distros on the system. I think I'm going to stick with ext3 and let ext4 mature a bit more, or is it already flawless?

I've been using it for a month now. Google around on ext4 and you'll see that it has been tested for 2 years or so. Arch has native support for it as well.

graysky · 2009-05-25 09:25:24

JawsThemeSwimming428 wrote:

There is a good article here on how to setup your partition scheme. I used the article's advice and created a separate Data partition so I can access it from anything I have installed or plan to install in the future. Also, it is a good idea so it is completely isolated from the system. Check it out, it's a good read.
http://www.sblinux.org/pages/symlink-home.html

Thanks for the post. I read the article but I don't understand his reasoning for a small /home with symlinks to many 40 GB max partitions. That just seems needlessly confusing. Most users can keep their /home/user1 clean by using symlinks to the /home/whatever1 /home/whatever2 /home/whatever3 etc. keeping all the data on the same /home partition. That provides the 'security' of keeping /home and your data off the / partition. Interesting read anyway.

Last edited by graysky (2009-05-25 09:26:52)

beat · 2009-05-25 09:53:58

/ 20GB ext3
/swap 2GB
/var 10GB ReiserFS
/home ~rest ext3

Does this look good?

I see a lot of people also have a different partition for /boot (usually formatted as ext2), what are the advantages in doing so? Since I'm not going to multi-boot should I do it? How big should this partition be?
Also I'm a bit afraid of trying ext4, are there noticeable performance gains over ext3? I can't risk losing some data so I must be sure it is safe.

Last edited by beat (2009-05-25 09:54:39)

Aprz · 2009-05-25 10:11:53

beat wrote:

/ 20GB ext3
/swap 2GB
/var 10GB ReiserFS
/home ~rest ext3
Does this look good?
I see a lot of people also have a different partition for /boot (usually formatted as ext2), what are the advantages in doing so? Since I'm not going to multi-boot should I do it? How big should this partition be?
Also I'm a bit afraid of trying ext4, are there noticeable performance gains over ext3? I can't risk losing some data so I must be sure it is safe.

Not mounting /boot has a huge security benefit. Ext2 is very robust and stable, and journalling support is unnecessary, it is an optimal choice for /boot where speed doesn't matter.

graysky · 2009-05-25 11:36:52

beat wrote:

/ 20GB ext3
/swap 2GB
/var 10GB ReiserFS
/home ~rest ext3
Does this look good?
I see a lot of people also have a different partition for /boot (usually formatted as ext2), what are the advantages in doing so? Since I'm not going to multi-boot should I do it? How big should this partition be?
Also I'm a bit afraid of trying ext4, are there noticeable performance gains over ext3? I can't risk losing some data so I must be sure it is safe.

Looks fine but I'd use ext4 if I were you. Answers to your questions: a different /boot is good if you have multiple Linux partitions and you want to manually manage your grub menu.lst; you can add entries to chainload the native grub screens of each of the respective Linux root partitions. Honestly, if you only have one Linux root partition, there isn't a really big reason to have your own /boot in my opinion. My system has a Windows partition and three Linux partitions; my /boot is 20 megs (7 is used). There are noticeable performance gains over using ext3, yes. Google around and search these forums for details. Ext4 is safe so long as the software you're using on it is well written. You can feel pretty comfortable using it; it will become the defacto workstation filesystem in the near future (my opinion). The 2.6.30 kernel is rumored to have a number of tweaks to make ext4 'safer' for some poorly coded software.

Sorry the above are so general and not referenced, I'm in a rush right now. Maybe others can elaborate to totally berate me

Last edited by graysky (2009-05-25 11:37:50)

Berticus · 2009-05-25 13:45:48

Depends on what you're going to be doing with your system. If it's a general desktop, you can setup a rather simple partition scheme. However, if it's a server or a desktop for development, you might want to have a more complex partition scheme to limit the growth size. So for a server, you would have a separate /var partition, so it doesn't get too big. On a desktop, you would probably limit /usr/local and /opt.

As for which file system to use, I use xfs for large files. So I've got a /common partition, which is like JawsThemeSwimming428's data partition. I called mine /common, because it's common files between the users, as opposed to /data, which I thought wasn't descriptive enough. My friend also pointed out that the name didn't really seem to match its purpose. I was going to call it /media, but that already exists for some other purpose. I use jfs on my home partition because for the most part, there's going to be really small files there. I usually have the other partitions as ext3, but since I've redone everything, I've gotten rid of a few partitions, and am using ext4.

beat · 2009-05-25 17:44:00

Ok I think I've settled myself and I'm probably going for something like this
/swap 2GB
/var 10GB ReiserFS
/ 20GB ext3
/home ~rest ext3

I'll keep on reading about ext4 and I might use ext4 for / and /home. Now just another question. Should I set them as LVM or PVM? Or doesn't it make a difference at all. So in my case since I'm going to have only 4 partitions I could set them all as primary.

I've got to thank everyone in this thread that helped me out. To be honest I didn't expect as many replies. I'm new to Arch Linux and I'm already loving it (and its community).

Last edited by beat (2009-05-25 17:48:29)

Arch Linux

#1 2009-05-24 18:55:19

Recommended partition scheme

#2 2009-05-24 18:58:45

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#3 2009-05-24 20:18:10

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#4 2009-05-24 20:18:29

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#5 2009-05-24 20:18:55

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#6 2009-05-24 22:31:33

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#7 2009-05-24 22:36:01

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#8 2009-05-24 22:38:16

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#9 2009-05-25 04:46:22

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#10 2009-05-25 05:07:08

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#11 2009-05-25 05:38:14

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#12 2009-05-25 06:57:44

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#13 2009-05-25 08:52:32

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#14 2009-05-25 09:25:24

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#15 2009-05-25 09:53:58

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#16 2009-05-25 10:11:53

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#17 2009-05-25 11:36:52

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#18 2009-05-25 13:45:48

Re: Recommended partition scheme

#19 2009-05-25 17:44:00

Re: Recommended partition scheme

Board footer