Is 7GB enough for root?

bennylb0 · 2010-06-04 07:45:38

Hi there,

On the Arch install I used the recommended 7GB for root and now with Arch installed running nice with KDE it seems I only have to 2GB left.

Will I need to increase the size of root or providing I don't install to much more will it stay around 5GB?

Thanks,

Last edited by bennylb0 (2010-06-04 08:38:04)

schuay · 2010-06-04 08:09:57

To be comfortable, I use around 12G for my main PCs.
But 7G should be fine too, although you will probably have to clear the pacman cache more often.
And pay attention to available disk space during updates, running out of space in the middle of a big -Syu sucks

(Right now my root is at 8.9G, without pacman cache 6.1G)

mimir · 2010-06-04 08:21:36

i just set aside 20Gb for the root. Way too much but can't see any reason not to since space is aplenty nowadays. Its also nice to never have to worry about space on root.

bennylb0 · 2010-06-04 08:59:42

I like your suggestions. During installation I wasn't so sure of the partition layout so went with all the recommendations. Now that I'm familiar and like you said disk space being aplenty these days I think I will increase root to about 15 or 20GB to be on the safe side.

Thanks,

Ramses de Norre · 2010-06-04 09:46:49

I am using 7.1G of / on a laptop with everything installed that I need (openbox, gnome, the regular GUI programs for everyday use). I mostly opt for 15G root partitions, I've found 10G to be a bit small in the past.

Inxsible · 2010-06-04 12:17:21

I have a 7GB root with 1.7GB used and 5GB still available. This install is pretty old (maybe about 4-5 yrs) and my total HDD on the dino laptop is only 30GB with 256MB RAM. So I had no option but to keep the system small and lean. But if you plan to install everything under the sun, you will need space.

Having said that, I like my lean system so much that when I installed Arch on my new desktop about 2 weeks ago, I still gave it only 5GB of root :-). No Gnome or KDE for me. Just musca with firefox and chromium and go-oo, with the latter three being the biggest packages.

demian · 2010-06-04 13:24:42

If you clean the pacman cache regularly the size of the installation won't grow.
I'd always want to have at least 30% and at least 1 GB of free space on the root partition.

Personally, my root is only 3 GB big because I have a rather small Openbox installation (1,7GB).
I compile on my home partition and haven't had breakages in over a year so I always clean the pacman cache.

Regards,
demian

Last edited by demian (2010-06-04 13:25:01)

bennylb0 · 2010-06-04 13:48:32

Hi all,

What are the benefits of keeping disk space lean by installing minimalist desktop environment's? Does it improve speed and performance and if so how?

And what is the best way to clean pacman cache?

gajo · 2010-06-04 14:02:31

i have it way too large (60GB) since i have a 1TB disk so space isn't an issue, but i wouldn't go below 20GB, especially if you install a lot of junk and prefer to keep the cache there so you have a backup when broken packages go into "stable" repos

demian · 2010-06-04 14:29:33

bennylb0 wrote:

Hi all,
What are the benefits of keeping disk space lean by installing minimalist desktop environment's? Does it improve speed and performance and if so how?
And what is the best way to clean pacman cache?

Use pacman -Sc to clean pkg archives you don't have installed on the system any more. Use pacman -Scc to completely clean the cache.
As for the performance, I don't think there's a big difference. Actually, I've believe having read in the forums here, that a (comparably) bloated Gnome can feel faster and/or more smooth than Openbox.
Just use what you're comfortable with.
I'm a little neurotic and i just can't have a cluttered system.

Inxsible · 2010-06-04 15:10:18

bennylb0 wrote:

Hi all,
What are the benefits of keeping disk space lean by installing minimalist desktop environment's? Does it improve speed and performance and if so how?
And what is the best way to clean pacman cache?

The aim is not to use as little a disk space as possible. The aim is so that the OS uses as little space as possible, so you can have the space for your own files

tomk · 2010-06-04 15:25:00

You could also consider putting /var and/or your cache on separate partitions. I have 8G root, about half used, 1G /var, 40% used, and 10G cache, 75% used. I trim down the cache once every 6 months or so.

ngoonee · 2010-06-04 16:48:09

I use 16.9 GB. 4 GB of it for the swap file, another 2-5 (I forget) for the 32-bit chroot .

Wintervenom · 2010-06-04 18:27:58

/home/tmp /tmp          none   bind                   0 0
/home/var /var          none   bind                   0 0

...and you're good.

randomguy · 2010-06-04 19:12:43

Wintervenom wrote:

/home/tmp /tmp          none   bind                   0 0
/home/var /var          none   bind                   0 0

...and you're good.

Hey thats a nice one! Always learning something new.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-06-04 07:45:38

Is 7GB enough for root?

#2 2010-06-04 08:09:57

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#3 2010-06-04 08:21:36

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#4 2010-06-04 08:59:42

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#5 2010-06-04 09:46:49

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#6 2010-06-04 12:17:21

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#7 2010-06-04 13:24:42

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#8 2010-06-04 13:48:32

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#9 2010-06-04 14:02:31

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#10 2010-06-04 14:29:33

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#11 2010-06-04 15:10:18

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#12 2010-06-04 15:25:00

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#13 2010-06-04 16:48:09

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#14 2010-06-04 18:27:58

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

#15 2010-06-04 19:12:43

Re: Is 7GB enough for root?

Board footer