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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #242773 > unrolled thread

Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD

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

Contents

  Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD "Jorge P. de Morais Neto" <jorge+list@disroot.org> - 2021-12-08 15:30 +0100
    Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-12-08 16:00 +0100
      Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Jorge P. de Morais Neto <jorge+list@disroot.org> - 2021-12-08 20:40 +0100
        Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-12-09 00:00 +0100
          Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Jorge P. de Morais Neto <jorge+list@disroot.org> - 2022-01-02 17:40 +0100
            Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2022-01-03 00:40 +0100
              Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Jorge P. de Morais Neto <jorge+list@disroot.org> - 2022-01-03 12:50 +0100
                Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2022-01-03 16:20 +0100
                  Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2022-01-03 17:00 +0100
                    Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2022-01-03 19:30 +0100
                  Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Jorge P. de Morais Neto <jorge+list@disroot.org> - 2022-01-04 01:00 +0100
                    Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2022-01-04 19:20 +0100
        Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-12-09 14:30 +0100
    Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 01:20 +0100
      Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-12-09 02:10 +0100
        Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Jorge P. de Morais Neto <jorge+list@disroot.org> - 2021-12-15 15:50 +0100
          Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-12-16 04:30 +0100
      Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-12-09 11:30 +0100
        Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 16:30 +0100
          Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-12-09 17:20 +0100
            Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-12-09 18:30 +0100
      Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Jorge P. de Morais Neto <jorge+list@disroot.org> - 2021-12-15 15:40 +0100
    Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-12-09 07:10 +0100
      Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Jorge P. de Morais Neto <jorge+list@disroot.org> - 2021-12-14 18:50 +0100
        Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-12-15 03:50 +0100
          Re: Why MBR partitioning (was: Reasonably simple setup for 1...) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2021-12-15 04:00 +0100
            Re: Why MBR partitioning (was: Reasonably simple setup for 1...) David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-12-15 05:20 +0100
            Re: Why MBR partitioning (was: Reasonably simple setup for 1...) "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2021-12-15 09:10 +0100
    Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-12-09 10:40 +0100
      Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-12-09 13:10 +0100
      Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Jorge P. de Morais Neto <jorge+list@disroot.org> - 2021-12-14 18:40 +0100
        Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-12-15 21:30 +0100
    Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD "hdv@gmail" <hdv.jadev@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 15:10 +0100
      Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-12-09 16:10 +0100
        Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD "hdv@gmail" <hdv.jadev@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 16:50 +0100
          Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2021-12-09 18:30 +0100
            Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-12-10 06:00 +0100
              Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2021-12-10 10:30 +0100
        Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-12-10 05:10 +0100
        Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-12-10 10:40 +0100
          Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-12-10 13:40 +0100
            Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-12-10 14:00 +0100
              Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-12-10 15:10 +0100
                Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2021-12-11 02:10 +0100
                  Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-12-11 12:30 +0100
            Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2021-12-10 14:20 +0100
      Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD Jorge P. de Morais Neto <jorge+list@disroot.org> - 2021-12-15 16:00 +0100
        Re: Reasonably simple setup for 1TB HDD and 250GB M.2 NVMe SSD "hdv@gmail" <hdv.jadev@gmail.com> - 2021-12-15 16:30 +0100

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#242900

Andrei POPESCU wrote: 
> On Jo, 09 dec 21, 09:46:26, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > 
> > In a more perfect world, the space for suspension would not
> > otherwise be treated as swap space.
> 
> It still has to be reserved from somewhere, and swap appears to be the 
> logical choice for that.

No, it was a convenient choice. A better choice would have been
a way to mark a swap partition or file as for use only by the
hibernation system, or, as actually once existed, a system that
would mount a specific swap partition during the hibernation
shutdown procedure, and unmount it after recovery.

-dsr-

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

#242902

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

On Vi, 10 dec 21, 07:21:37, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote: 
> > On Jo, 09 dec 21, 09:46:26, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > 
> > > In a more perfect world, the space for suspension would not
> > > otherwise be treated as swap space.
> > 
> > It still has to be reserved from somewhere, and swap appears to be the 
> > logical choice for that.
> 
> No, it was a convenient choice. A better choice would have been
> a way to mark a swap partition or file as for use only by the
> hibernation system, or, as actually once existed, a system that
> would mount a specific swap partition during the hibernation
> shutdown procedure, and unmount it after recovery.

In my opinion that would be a waste of space.

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

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

#242909

Andrei POPESCU wrote: 
> On Vi, 10 dec 21, 07:21:37, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > Andrei POPESCU wrote: 
> > > On Jo, 09 dec 21, 09:46:26, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > In a more perfect world, the space for suspension would not
> > > > otherwise be treated as swap space.
> > > 
> > > It still has to be reserved from somewhere, and swap appears to be the 
> > > logical choice for that.
> > 
> > No, it was a convenient choice. A better choice would have been
> > a way to mark a swap partition or file as for use only by the
> > hibernation system, or, as actually once existed, a system that
> > would mount a specific swap partition during the hibernation
> > shutdown procedure, and unmount it after recovery.
> 
> In my opinion that would be a waste of space.

It is a reasonable opinion, but I disagree.

On modern laptops, there is usually a lot of disk space (500GB - 1TB),
so 8-64GB reserved for a special use is not a terrible price compared
to other things we do. I wouldn't make it mandatory, just easy.

Many laptops never need to go to disk-stored suspension; a low-power
sleep mode is all they need to get through to the next power point. For
the cases where it is necessary, it should be as reliable as possible.

-dsr-

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

#242936

On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 08:26:24 -0500
Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:

> Many laptops never need to go to disk-stored suspension; a low-power
> sleep mode is all they need to get through to the next power point.
> For the cases where it is necessary, it should be as reliable as
> possible.

Perhaps. But one reason to use hibernation (disk-stored suspension) is
security. If your hard drive, including swap area, is encrypted,
hibernation encrypts everything, and one would need the passphrase to
get in to the system. Thus your data is more secure from governments
and other thieves.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

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

#242962

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 08:08:22AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 08:26:24 -0500
> Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
> 
> > Many laptops never need to go to disk-stored suspension; a low-power
> > sleep mode is all they need to get through to the next power point.
> > For the cases where it is necessary, it should be as reliable as
> > possible.
> 
> Perhaps. But one reason to use hibernation (disk-stored suspension) is
> security. If your hard drive, including swap area, is encrypted,
> hibernation encrypts everything, and one would need the passphrase to
> get in to the system. Thus your data is more secure from governments
> and other thieves.
> 

One thing that may be worth thinking about: if you take "guided partitioning"
then for Bullseye, the default size of swap is 1GB - since very few
programs should be hitting swap. If you have a laptop with 8G of memory,
then you may well need at least 8G to hibernate - so it is worth checking
siazes and requirements as you install.

On the laptop next door with 4G of memory but only 32G of flash disk - 
saving for hibernation would be difficult.

All the very best, as ever,

Andy Cater


> -- 
> Does anybody read signatures any more?
> 
> https://charlescurley.com
> https://charlescurley.com/blog/
> 

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

#242904

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

On 10/12/2021 12:21, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Jo, 09 dec 21, 09:46:26, Dan Ritter wrote:
>>> In a more perfect world, the space for suspension would not
>>> otherwise be treated as swap space.
>> It still has to be reserved from somewhere, and swap appears to be the
>> logical choice for that.
> No, it was a convenient choice. A better choice would have been
> a way to mark a swap partition or file as for use only by the
> hibernation system, or, as actually once existed, a system that
> would mount a specific swap partition during the hibernation
> shutdown procedure, and unmount it after recovery.

According to systemd-suspend.service(8):

"Immediately before entering system suspend and/or hibernation 
systemd-suspend.service (and the other mentioned units, respectively) 
will run all executables in /lib/systemd/system-sleep/"

There is also /etc/pm/sleep.d, which is a more system-specific location 
(i.e. /etc rather than /lib)

Therefore, it *should* be theoretically possible to reserve a partition 
explicitly for the purpose of hibernation. The script can bring the 
device online (with swapon) and then tell the kernel to hibernate to 
that device (echo $MAJOR:$MINOR > /sys/power/resume). Upon resume, the 
device can be taken offline (with swapoff) so that it isn't used for 
regular swap.

For extra credit, devise a standard marking for this partition (e.g. a 
label or a GPT UUID) so that this system can be made universal :)



> -dsr-
>

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

#243141

Hello,

Em [2021-12-09 qui 15:00:43+0100], hdv@gmail escreveu:

> Regarding the swap space: I wouldn't make it so big.  That really isn't 
> necessary.  I have a 64GB RAM system here, on which I have 2GB of swap.  I 
> doubt I have ever seen conky show me more than 35% use.  And I am quite a 
> heavy user of system resources (much 3D CAD editing, photo editing, 
> video editing and rendering, and often multiple VM's in use).
>
> My laptop has 32GB of RAM and 2 GB of swap and on that system I haven't 
> seen much swapping either.

I wanted to play safe in case I later upgrade the RAM to 32 GiB and,
additionally, I later enable the hibernate functionality.  Since I have
a 1 TB HDD, I can spare a 32 GiB (approximately 34 GB) for swapping.
For increased swapping performance, the swapping space on a rotational
drive should be contiguous and located at the start of the drive, right?

Kindest regards,
Jorge

-- 
- Many people hate injustice but few check the facts; this causes more
  injustice.  Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
- I am Brazilian.  I hope my English is correct and I welcome feedback.
- https://www.defectivebydesign.org
- https://www.gnu.org

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

#243142

On 2021-12-15 15:51, Jorge P. de Morais Neto wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Em [2021-12-09 qui 15:00:43+0100], hdv@gmail escreveu:
> 
>> Regarding the swap space: I wouldn't make it so big.  That really isn't
>> necessary.  I have a 64GB RAM system here, on which I have 2GB of swap.  I
>> doubt I have ever seen conky show me more than 35% use.  And I am quite a
>> heavy user of system resources (much 3D CAD editing, photo editing,
>> video editing and rendering, and often multiple VM's in use).
>>
>> My laptop has 32GB of RAM and 2 GB of swap and on that system I haven't
>> seen much swapping either.
> 
> I wanted to play safe in case I later upgrade the RAM to 32 GiB and,
> additionally, I later enable the hibernate functionality.  Since I have
> a 1 TB HDD, I can spare a 32 GiB (approximately 34 GB) for swapping.

If you can spare the space, then I don't see why not. If you plan to go 
to ACPI state S4 (suspend to disk, hibernate) this certainly is useful. 
In my experience only a handful of people actually use S4 though.

 > For increased swapping performance, the swapping space on a rotational
> drive should be contiguous and located at the start of the drive, right?

I used to think so myself. And out of habit I still choose to do it like 
that myself. But I haven't noticed any significant performance gains 
during some extensive testing in practice (>100 disks over a period of 3 
years in a server room of a university).

Apart from performance, it is said that it would mean less movement of 
the heads and thus less wear [1], but again, in practice I haven't ever 
seen a case where this would have made a significant difference in a 
normal user setting. It would be different in a large-scale commercial 
setting though.

There is something else to consider: why not create a swap file, instead 
of a swap partition? That way you are free to play around and test what 
fits your needs best, without having to chance the partitions.

[1] This will depend on many, many parameters. You would expect a 
location somewhere in the middle of the disk to be the sweet spot when 
it comes to minimising movement in a fairly filled up disk. But then 
again, if you have lots of static files you do not regularly access in a 
large partition at the end of the disk, then you will have an uneven 
geometry which will make the optimum shift.

Grx HdV

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web