Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #241170 > unrolled thread

New debian installation disk partition

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  New debian installation disk partition Josef Strýček <josef.strycek@email.cz> - 2021-10-11 13:20 +0200
    Re: New debian installation disk partition "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-10-11 13:50 +0200
    Re: New debian installation disk partition Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-10-11 14:00 +0200
    Re: New debian installation disk partition Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-10-11 16:20 +0200
    Re: New debian installation disk partition David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-10-11 21:40 +0200
      Re: New debian installation disk partition Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-10-11 22:20 +0200
        Re: New debian installation disk partition David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-10-11 23:10 +0200
          Re: New debian installation disk partition Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-10-12 13:10 +0200
      Re: New debian installation disk partition Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-10-11 22:40 +0200
        Re: New debian installation disk partition David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-10-11 23:00 +0200
          Re: New debian installation disk partition Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-10-12 09:00 +0200
            Re: New debian installation disk partition David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-10-12 09:10 +0200
              Re: New debian installation disk partition Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-10-13 06:50 +0200
                Re: New debian installation disk partition David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-10-13 19:50 +0200

#241170 — New debian installation disk partition

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

I have a question how to partition new debain installation.I have 64GB ssd 
and 500GB hdd. Can I have / on ssd with ext4 and hdd with btrfs /hame /var 

/tmp /opt. Could you recommend layout for ssd and hdd, that ssd is not 
overwritten unnecessarily and ideal filesystem for ssd and hdd.




Thank you in advance

Josef Strýček

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#241174

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 01:18:55PM +0200, Josef Strýček wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a question how to partition new debain installation.I have 64GB ssd
> and 500GB hdd. Can I have / on ssd with ext4 and hdd with btrfs /hame /var 
> 
> /tmp /opt. Could you recommend layout for ssd and hdd, that ssd is not
> overwritten unnecessarily and ideal filesystem for ssd and hdd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you in advance
> 
> Josef Strýček

Hi Josef,

I'd suggest you boot with the installer and use expert mode which will
allow you more control over partitioning.

Take the ssd and use guided partitioning - put everything in one partition.
That will set up the appropriate partitions for booting, for /  and add a swap
partition at the end of 1G size.

Partition the 500G hdd however you wish - add a partition for /var and /tmp.
What sort of thing are you planning for /opt - it's not often used in Debian
but only for third party packages.

Nothing is written on the filesystems until you finish the partitioning 
on each disk.

With every good wish, as ever,

Andy Cater

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241177

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Lu, 11 oct 21, 13:18:55, Josef Strýček wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a question how to partition new debain installation.I have 64GB ssd
> and 500GB hdd. Can I have / on ssd with ext4 and hdd with btrfs /hame /var 
> 
> /tmp /opt.

Sure you can.

> Could you recommend layout for ssd and hdd, that ssd is not
> overwritten unnecessarily 

My recommendation would be to have only /home on the HDD, unless you 
expect the others to become too big for the SSD.

For regular use[1] the SSD should be just fine, and you should already 
have a good strategy to restore your operating system quickly if needed.

If your SSD fails too soon it wasn't worth it anyway and hopefully you 
can still replace it in warranty ;)

> and ideal filesystem for ssd and hdd.

There is no such thing as "ideal", it depends very much on your needs. 

In almost all cases ext4 will be just fine for general use. You are 
unlikely to notice any significant improvement with other file systems 
unless you have very special[1] needs.

Since you mentioned btrfs, do you actually need any of its additional 
features compared to ext4? With only one HDD its benefits will be 
limited (snapshots and subvolumes only?) while increasing complexity.

See also:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linuxs-perpetually-half-finished-filesystem/

[1] You would know if your use is special ;)

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241196

Hi Josef,

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 01:18:55PM +0200, Josef Strýček wrote:
> I have a question how to partition new debain installation.I have 64GB ssd
> and 500GB hdd. Can I have / on ssd with ext4 and hdd with btrfs /hame /var 

Of course.

> /tmp /opt. Could you recommend layout for ssd and hdd, that ssd is not
> overwritten unnecessarily and ideal filesystem for ssd and hdd.

You've asked questions which are largely down to taste so you will
get a lot of different answers.

I would use "manual layout" in the installer to ensure I got exactly
what I wanted.

I would use whatever filesystems I wanted and not care about SSD
writes unless it's an ancient SSD or a truly exceptional use case.

For most uses /tmp is best left as a tmpfs (memory-backed) and /opt
starts off empty. If you think you're going to use /opt then you
must have some idea what you're going to put into it.

I would put a 1G or so swap partition on HDD and then dedicate whole
rest of the HDD to either btrfs or to LVM, in both cases for the
purposes of volume management. That way if your initial guesses for
sizing are incorrect you can easily change them and/or switch things
into btrfs subvolumes or LVM logical volumes later on.

But to be honest, SSD is life changing compared to HDD so I'd want
to put everything on SSD as long as it fits. I am a big lover of
redundancy so the lack of matched pairs of storage worries me, but
assuming that can't be changed I think I would use say the first
5GiB of SSD for / and then the rest as either btrfs or LVM again for
volume management.

I'd then create subvolumes or logical volumes for /home and /var and
initially have them on the SSD for speed. I'd move them into the
btrfs/LVM on the HDD only if you began to run out of SSD space.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241205

On 10/11/21 04:18, Josef Strýček wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a question how to partition new debain installation.I have 64GB ssd
> and 500GB hdd. Can I have / on ssd with ext4 and hdd with btrfs /hame /var
> 
> /tmp /opt. 


You should be able to achieve that layout with the Debian installer 
(d-i) by choosing "Partitioning method" -> "manual".


I ran btrfs for a few years, but did not understand the maintenance 
requirements.  Over time, the disks became slow and slower.  Eventually, 
I had to learn about btrfs balancing, write Perl script to perform it, 
and run the script repeatedly to recover and maintain the disks. 
Eventually, I got lazy and reinstalled using ext4.


> Could you recommend layout for ssd and hdd, that ssd is not
> overwritten unnecessarily and ideal filesystem for ssd and hdd.


When SSD's first came out, there was a lot of fuss about minimizing wear 
and maximizing performance -- disabling swap, over-provisioning, trim, 
etc..  Since then, SSD's have improved and operating systems have become 
better at using SSD's.  So, I would not worry about Debian wearing out 
the SSD; just run d-i and let it do the work.  Once the system is in 
operation, some people like to run fstrim(8) periodically (e.g. monthly, 
weekly).


A key idea that still applies is that your OS and applications should be 
on one disk and your data should be on another disk.  I use SSD's for OS 
disks (including /home) and I keep the vast majority of my data in a 
file server (Samba) on HDD's in a ZFS mirror.


A killer feature of d-i is that it can build OS disks with encryption. 
But, a plaintext "/boot" partition is required to boot the computer.


I prefer to keep my OS images small enough to fit onto "16 GB" devices. 
  This facilitates imaging, cloning, and disaster preparedness.  I can 
save 3 monthly images for 6 computers on a 300 GB USB HDD.  But, there 
is only one active user account on each machine, I must limit how much 
software I install, I must detach e-mail attachments and save them on 
the server, and I must keep my home directory usage at a minimum.


Here are my disk partitioning notes from when I installed my Debian 10 
daily driver:

         Partitioning method                     manual
             Encrypted volume (sda2_crypt) - 1.0 GB Linux device-mapper 
(crypt)
                  #1             1.0 GB     f  swap          swap
             Encrypted volume (sda3_crypt) - 13.0 GB Linux device-mapper 
(crypt)
                  #1            13.0 GB     f  ext4          /
             SCSI5 (0,0,0) (sda) - 60.0 GB ATA INTEL SSDSC2CW06
                  #1  primary  999.3 MB  B  F  ext4          /boot
                  #2  primary    1.0 GB     K  crypto       (sda2_crypt)
                  #3  primary   13.0 GB     K  crypto       (sda3_crypt)
                                45.0 GB        FREESPACE
         Finish partitioning and write changes to disk

Notes:

1.  I am using MBR partitioning, because some of my computers are 14 
years old and MBR is the lowest common denominator.  I can build a 
Debian OS disk in one computer and then move the disk (or image) to 
another computer.  (The partition scheme chosen by the d-i is determined 
by the firmware mode of the computer running d-i -- e.g. BIOS -> MBR, 
EUFI -> GPT.)

2.  Partition #1 is 1 GB, plaintext ext4 /boot

3.  Partition #2 is 1 GB, encrypted swap (random key)

4.  Partition #3 is 13 GB, encrypted ext4 root (passphrase)


I suggest that you disconnect the HDD (both power and data cables) and 
install Debian onto the SSD similar to the above.  It is best if the SSD 
has device node /dev/sda.  You may want a larger root partition.  It is 
important to have a swap partition; do not eliminate it.


Once Debian is running, I suggest that you connect the HDD, partition 
the HDD using GPT, create one partition using 95% of available space, 
initialize a LUKS container inside the partition, and create a ZFS pool 
with name "data" and with option "copies=2" using the encrypted mapper 
node.  The zpool will be mounted at "/data", will be able to store ~237 
GB, and ZFS will be able to survive "one or a few" sectors going bad 
without any data loss (it is wise to scrub periodically).


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241207

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 12:29:48 -0700
David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:


>  I must detach
> e-mail attachments and save them on the server

You could run an IMAP server on your server, set up an account in your
email client with a suitable directory structure and drag and drop old
email into archives, complete with attachments, so everything remains
online. Many email clients can do this fairly automatically.

It's easier still if you run a full MTA on the server, and don't use
local email accounts at all, but many people don't want the (very
minimal) maintenance needs.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241210

On 10/11/21 13:13, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 12:29:48 -0700
> David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I must detach e-mail attachments and save them on the server
> 
> You could run an IMAP server on your server, set up an account in your
> email client with a suitable directory structure and drag and drop old
> email into archives, complete with attachments, so everything remains
> online. Many email clients can do this fairly automatically.
> 
> It's easier still if you run a full MTA on the server, and don't use
> local email accounts at all, but many people don't want the (very
> minimal) maintenance needs.


I hosted WWW and NWN servers at my home many years ago.  Bad idea.


I have domain hosting through he.net, and prefer their professionally 
managed e-mail.


Yes, detaching can get tedious, but I am wary of attempting to automate 
such and it's not a huge burden.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241235

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 14:03:50 -0700
David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:

> On 10/11/21 13:13, Joe wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 12:29:48 -0700
> > David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:
> > 
> >   
> >> I must detach e-mail attachments and save them on the server  
> > 
> > You could run an IMAP server on your server, set up an account in
> > your email client with a suitable directory structure and drag and
> > drop old email into archives, complete with attachments, so
> > everything remains online. Many email clients can do this fairly
> > automatically.
> > 
> > It's easier still if you run a full MTA on the server, and don't use
> > local email accounts at all, but many people don't want the (very
> > minimal) maintenance needs.  
> 
> 
> I hosted WWW and NWN servers at my home many years ago.  Bad idea.
> 
> 
> I have domain hosting through he.net, and prefer their professionally 
> managed e-mail.
> 
>
Yes, I would never consider running a public web server, I know just
enough about web security to know that I don't know anything like
enough to keep it secure. 

But I don't expose the IMAP server, either, it's internal only. I get
to it by ssh or vpn while away from home. It's less convenient, but
less to worry about.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241208

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Lu, 11 oct 21, 12:29:48, David Christensen wrote:
> 
> Once Debian is running, I suggest that you connect the HDD, partition the
> HDD using GPT, create one partition using 95% of available space, initialize
> a LUKS container inside the partition, and create a ZFS pool with name
> "data" and with option "copies=2" using the encrypted mapper node.  The
> zpool will be mounted at "/data", will be able to store ~237 GB, and ZFS
> will be able to survive "one or a few" sectors going bad without any data
> loss (it is wise to scrub periodically).

ZFS has native encryption now, any particular reason to prefer using a 
LUKS container instead?

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241209

On 10/11/21 13:39, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 11 oct 21, 12:29:48, David Christensen wrote:
>>
>> Once Debian is running, I suggest that you connect the HDD, partition the
>> HDD using GPT, create one partition using 95% of available space, initialize
>> a LUKS container inside the partition, and create a ZFS pool with name
>> "data" and with option "copies=2" using the encrypted mapper node.  The
>> zpool will be mounted at "/data", will be able to store ~237 GB, and ZFS
>> will be able to survive "one or a few" sectors going bad without any data
>> loss (it is wise to scrub periodically).
> 
> ZFS has native encryption now, any particular reason to prefer using a
> LUKS container instead?


I use LUKS because ZFS native encryption was not available OOTB the last 
time I looked on Debian.  What version of d-i has ZFS native encryption?


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241233

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Lu, 11 oct 21, 13:56:28, David Christensen wrote:
> On 10/11/21 13:39, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Lu, 11 oct 21, 12:29:48, David Christensen wrote:
> > > 
> > > Once Debian is running, I suggest that you connect the HDD, partition the
> > > HDD using GPT, create one partition using 95% of available space, initialize
> > > a LUKS container inside the partition, and create a ZFS pool with name
> > > "data" and with option "copies=2" using the encrypted mapper node.  The
> > > zpool will be mounted at "/data", will be able to store ~237 GB, and ZFS
> > > will be able to survive "one or a few" sectors going bad without any data
> > > loss (it is wise to scrub periodically).
> > 
> > ZFS has native encryption now, any particular reason to prefer using a
> > LUKS container instead?
> 
> I use LUKS because ZFS native encryption was not available OOTB the last
> time I looked on Debian.  What version of d-i has ZFS native encryption?

I wasn't aware of any kind of support for ZFS in d-i.

The Debian ZFS wiki page doesn't mention root-on-ZFS at all and the 
official upstream instructions (for buster) are using debootstrap from a 
live image for installation.

https://wiki.debian.org/ZFS
https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Getting%20Started/Debian/Debian%20Buster%20Root%20on%20ZFS.html

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241234

On 10/11/21 23:58, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 11 oct 21, 13:56:28, David Christensen wrote:
>> On 10/11/21 13:39, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

>>> ZFS has native encryption now, any particular reason to prefer using a
>>> LUKS container instead?
>>
>> I use LUKS because ZFS native encryption was not available OOTB the last
>> time I looked on Debian.  What version of d-i has ZFS native encryption?
> 
> I wasn't aware of any kind of support for ZFS in d-i.

<snip>


If d-i does not have native support for ZFS encryption, then when I 
break my computer I will be unable to use the d-i media to access my 
disk(s).


Therefore, I prefer a LUKS container.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241261

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Ma, 12 oct 21, 00:02:50, David Christensen wrote:
> On 10/11/21 23:58, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Lu, 11 oct 21, 13:56:28, David Christensen wrote:
> > > On 10/11/21 13:39, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
> > > > ZFS has native encryption now, any particular reason to prefer using a
> > > > LUKS container instead?
> > > 
> > > I use LUKS because ZFS native encryption was not available OOTB the last
> > > time I looked on Debian.  What version of d-i has ZFS native encryption?
> > 
> > I wasn't aware of any kind of support for ZFS in d-i.
> 
> If d-i does not have native support for ZFS encryption, then when I break my
> computer I will be unable to use the d-i media to access my disk(s).

The Debian Installer doesn't have support for ZFS at all, so it's use to 
rescue for root-on-ZFS systems is limited, at best, regardless of the 
encryption. 

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241273

On 10/12/21 21:47, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 12 oct 21, 00:02:50, David Christensen wrote:
>> On 10/11/21 23:58, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>> On Lu, 11 oct 21, 13:56:28, David Christensen wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/21 13:39, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>
>>>>> ZFS has native encryption now, any particular reason to prefer using a
>>>>> LUKS container instead?
>>>>
>>>> I use LUKS because ZFS native encryption was not available OOTB the last
>>>> time I looked on Debian.  What version of d-i has ZFS native encryption?
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware of any kind of support for ZFS in d-i.
>>
>> If d-i does not have native support for ZFS encryption, then when I break my
>> computer I will be unable to use the d-i media to access my disk(s).
> 
> The Debian Installer doesn't have support for ZFS at all, so it's use to
> rescue for root-on-ZFS systems is limited, at best, regardless of the
> encryption.


AFAIK d-i as of version 10 does not support ZFS in any way, so I do not 
use ZFS on Debian.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web