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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#242824

On 09/12/2021 16:16, piorunz wrote:
> I monitor SMART very closely.

Just spend last hour adding things to my Telegram bot which monitors my
server passively:

https://i.imgur.com/TnI0kex.png
https://i.imgur.com/3RQQWT1.png

All important SMART fields which are 0, are now hidden, I only see
non-zero values.

😍

--
With kindest regards, Piotr.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org/
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

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

#243139

Hi.

Em [2021-12-09 qui 05:14:09+0500], Alexander V. Makartsev escreveu:

> So, if you plan to use NVMe SSD as a system drive, I suggest you also 
> keep /swap partition

I am considering swapping to the SSD, yes.

> Also, I suggest you to make backups of /home on daily schedule to HDD,
> because data recovery from a failed SSD is not only very expensive,
> but often also next to impossible.

Thank you for this tip, I was not fully aware of this issue.

Kindest regards

-- 
- 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.
- Free Software Supporter: https://www.fsf.org/free-software-supporter
- If an email of mine arrives at your spam box, please notify me.

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

#242793

On 12/8/21 6:27 AM, Jorge P. de Morais Neto wrote:
> Hi everyone!  I have a Dell Inspiron 5570 laptop with 1TB HDD and 16 GiB
> RAM (it supports 32 GiB).  I am about to buy an M.2 NVMe 250GB SSD---a
> Western Digital WD Blue SN550.  I would like to set the system for
> reliability, SSD durability¹ and performance.
> 
> I have looked at [Multi HDD/SSD Partitioning Scheme][] but it is too
> complex and probably outdated (last modified 2013-10-17).  I would like
> something simpler.  For backups, I would continue my weekly manual
> backups to my 1.5 TB external HDD with duplicity.
> 
> On the SSD I intend to leave 35 GB unpartitioned for extra over
> provisioning.  It would have just one 215 GB partition.
> 
> On the HDD I would put a 34 GB swap partition at the beginning, then a
> 215 GB partition for RAID1 with the SSD, then a 751 GB partition.  I
> intend to put Debian system *and* /home on the 215 GB RAID1, but I would
> set all the XDG user dirs² on the 751 GB HDD partition.  I would have
> tmpfs on /tmp---I have read that long thread where someone alleged that
> moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useless but I disagree.
> 
> Would all this be reasonable?  Do you recommend any change?  Any tip?  I
> run Debian stable with only official repositories, including
> bullseye-backports.  I also manually installed GNU Guix package manager
> and my main Guix profile has 163 packages.
> 
> Regards!
> 
> [Multi HDD/SSD Partitioning Scheme] https://wiki.debian.org/Multi%20HDD/SSD%20Partition%20Scheme
> 
> ¹ According to its data sheet, the 250GB WD Blue SN550 endures 150TBW.
> ² See the xdg-user-dir manpage.


I would remove the 1 TB HDD, install the 250 GB NVMe SSD, and do a fresh 
install of Debian 11 with MBR partitioning, 1E+9 byte boot partition 
(ext4), 1E+9 byte swap partition (random key encrypted), and 13E+9 to 
27E+9 byte root partition (passphrase encrypted ext4).  (E.g. partition 
table and first three partitions fit onto a "16 GB" to "30 GB" device.) 
  Once the system is built, I would add a fourth partition (key file 
encrypted ext4) using all remaining space for development, audio/ video 
working and "scratch" files, VM's, etc..


Over-provisioning was a big deal when SSD's first came out.  I would not 
worry about it on that laptop with that SSD.  If you do have an app with 
an intensive and sustained write workload, build a specific computer.


I would put the 1 TB HDD into an external HDD enclosure and use it to 
store system images (e.g. partition table, boot, swap, and root).  I 
take images of all of my system drives every month, and retain images 
for a few months.  You will need a USB flash drive with a Debian 
installation, or some live distribution (e.g. Debian Live, Clonezilla, 
etc.), to take and restore images.


I backup daily.


I recommend a file server or NAS for bulk data -- downloads, music, 
photographs, videos, etc..  Set up a VPN for remote access.


(Windows has Offline Files.  Does Debian GNU/Linux?)


I recommend a version control server for user project files and system 
configuration files.


(My SOHO server runs both of the above services in VM's.  Storage is RAID.)


David

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

#243115

Hello!

Em [2021-12-08 qua 22:05:50-0800], David Christensen escreveu:

> I would remove the 1 TB HDD, install the 250 GB NVMe SSD, and do a fresh 
> install of Debian 11 with MBR partitioning, 1E+9 byte boot partition 
> (ext4)

Why MBR partitioning and why a separate boot partition?

> I would put the 1 TB HDD into an external HDD enclosure and use it to
> store system images (e.g. partition table, boot, swap, and root).

I already have a 1.5 TB external HDD.  And I intend to use GPT
partitioning, which (I've read) stores checksummed copies of the
partition table.  For the actual data, I have weekly backups to the
external HDD, and I intend to have daily rsync of some of the SSD data
to the internal HDD.  Would not that be safe enough?

> I recommend a file server or NAS for bulk data -- downloads, music,
> photographs, videos, etc..

I would like to setup a home server, but probably not very soon.

> I recommend a version control server for user project files and system 
> configuration files.

I store my dotfiles (and some other data) in a git repository in my
notebook.  I hope that duplicity is correctly backing up that git
repository, but I admit I have not tested it.

Regards!

-- 
- 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]

#243125

On 12/14/21 9:39 AM, Jorge P. de Morais Neto wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> Em [2021-12-08 qua 22:05:50-0800], David Christensen escreveu:
> 
>> I would remove the 1 TB HDD, install the 250 GB NVMe SSD, and do a fresh
>> install of Debian 11 with MBR partitioning, 1E+9 byte boot partition
>> (ext4)
> 
> Why MBR partitioning 


So that you can boot the system drive in old and new computers -- e.g. 
MBR is "lowest common denominator".


> and why a separate boot partition?


To boot the system when root is encrypted.


>> I would put the 1 TB HDD into an external HDD enclosure and use it to
>> store system images (e.g. partition table, boot, swap, and root).
> 
> I already have a 1.5 TB external HDD.  And I intend to use GPT
> partitioning, which (I've read) stores checksummed copies of the
> partition table. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_integrity


I keep records of how I partition each disk, so I can easily recreate a 
damaged partition table.  Alternatively, or in addition, there are tools 
for backing up and restoring partition tables.  The monthly images that 
I take include the partition table, boot partition, swap partition, and 
root partition.


I suggest that you look at Btrfs and/or ZFS for filesystem, metadata, 
and data integrity.  Btrfs is available in the Debian installer and can 
be used for boot, root, and data; but may require manual maintenance. 
ZFS is a package, and readily used for data; but boot and root are 
advanced use-cases.


> For the actual data, I have weekly backups to the
> external HDD, and I intend to have daily rsync of some of the SSD data
> to the internal HDD.  Would not that be safe enough?


Only you can decide what is "safe enough".


>> I recommend a file server or NAS for bulk data -- downloads, music,
>> photographs, videos, etc..
> 
> I would like to setup a home server, but probably not very soon.


Setting up a Samba server is an ideal use-case for Debian.  So is 
setting up a Git repository.  Save up for a real server with Xeon CPU(s) 
and ECC memory (used hardware shipped to Brasil starts around US$250 on 
eBay).


>> I recommend a version control server for user project files and system
>> configuration files.
> 
> I store my dotfiles (and some other data) in a git repository in my
> notebook.  


Good.


> I hope that duplicity is correctly backing up that git
> repository, 


Do not hope; validate.


> but I admit I have not tested it.


Install Debian onto a good USB 3.0 flash drive.  Install your favorite 
troubleshooting and backup tools.  Backup your laptop as usual.  Use the 
USB Debian drive to do a restore onto alternate media.  Use the USB 
Debian drive to verify that the restore matches the original.


David

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

#243126 — Re: Why MBR partitioning (was: Reasonably simple setup for 1...)

David Christensen composed on 2021-12-14 18:40 (UTC-0800):

> Jorge P. de Morais Neto wrote:

>> Why MBR partitioning 

> So that you can boot the system drive in old and new computers -- e.g. 
> MBR is "lowest common denominator".

I just found out from Asus that Intel 500 series chipsets do not support CSM.
Luckily my cloned NVME came from another NVME configured for UEFI. So, some new
computers don't support MBR.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion,
	based on faith, not based on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata

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

#243127 — Re: Why MBR partitioning (was: Reasonably simple setup for 1...)

On 12/14/21 6:52 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> David Christensen composed on 2021-12-14 18:40 (UTC-0800):
> 
>> Jorge P. de Morais Neto wrote:
> 
>>> Why MBR partitioning
> 
>> So that you can boot the system drive in old and new computers -- e.g.
>> MBR is "lowest common denominator".
> 
> I just found out from Asus that Intel 500 series chipsets do not support CSM.
> Luckily my cloned NVME came from another NVME configured for UEFI. So, some new
> computers don't support MBR.


The OP's Inspiron 5570 (2017) likely shipped in UEFI mode with Secure 
Boot and GPT.  It should offer Legacy mode, which the Debian installer 
should detect and use MBR partitioning.


MBR works well with my imaging strategy because I only need to backup/ 
restore the first ~15 MB of each OS device.  GPT would require me to 
also deal with the backup partition table, whose location can change if 
the source device and destination device are different sizes.


David

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

#243130 — Re: Why MBR partitioning (was: Reasonably simple setup for 1...)

Hi,

David Christensen wrote:
> > So that you can boot the system drive in old and new computers -- e.g.
> > MBR is "lowest common denominator".

Felix Miata wrote:
> I just found out from Asus that Intel 500 series chipsets do not support CSM.
> Luckily my cloned NVME came from another NVME configured for UEFI. So, some
> new computers don't support MBR.

The usability of MBR partitioned devices is not tied to CSM.
The UEFI specs define MBR partition type 0xef for the EFI System Partition.

Nevertheless, experiments of Ubuntu with its bootable ISOs showed that
some few firmwares refuse to boot from a storage device that has no GPT.

It would still have to be determined whether the lack of error reports
in regard to Debian's bootable ISOs for amd64 and i386 means that those
firmwares recognize GPT Basic Data Partitions of type
EBD0A0A2-B9E5-4433-87C0-68B6B72699C7 as storage location of EFI boot
programs. The specs prescribe type C12A7328-F81F-11D2-BA4B-00A0C93EC93B
but Debian ISOs don't have such a partition. They have an MBR partition
of type 0xef, though.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

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

#242795

"Jorge P. de Morais Neto" <jorge+list@disroot.org> writes:

> Hi everyone!  I have a Dell Inspiron 5570 laptop with 1TB HDD and 16 GiB
> RAM (it supports 32 GiB).  I am about to buy an M.2 NVMe 250GB SSD---a
> Western Digital WD Blue SN550.  I would like to set the system for
> reliability, SSD durability¹ and performance.

Are you really on a shoestring budget? The SN550 comes in 1 TB size
too. You could put two SSDs on the system easily.

> On the SSD I intend to leave 35 GB unpartitioned for extra over
> provisioning.  It would have just one 215 GB partition.

Does that actually help anything? I see it more as a case of "SSDs are
ice cream" fallacy from the decade before last.

> On the HDD I would put a 34 GB swap partition at the beginning

If you're going to page, why page to the slow media? Because the SSD
is ice cream again and will melt away if used?

> ...then a 215 GB partition for RAID1 with the SSD...

I love the idea of using the slow mirror capability of mdraid although I
don't know if it's still there. Also I see from your responses you had
no idea that even exists and assumed mirroring takes care of this
automagically. There's also the thing about 2.5" drives that they're
almost exclusively SMR now which means super slow writes, really bad for
mirroring.

I don't know what you expect to gain though? Up to date backup in case
of a specific kind of drive failure I guess? But what if you get the
kind of failure where both or your mirrors are crap? I actually had that
sort of thing happen on a RAID-6 array. Redundancy or mirroring not much
good if your data is crap. That's when backups are important.

> then a 751 GB partition.  I intend to put Debian system *and* /home on
> the 215 GB RAID1, but I would set all the XDG user dirs² on the 751 GB
> HDD partition.  I would have tmpfs on /tmp---I have read that long
> thread where someone alleged that moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it
> useless but I disagree.

Any link to this discussion? I really like tmpfs for /tmp but for
everything there's resistance to change first and foremost.

> Would all this be reasonable?

I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder. To me, simple would be
mounting the SSD on / and the HD on /stuff. Or just go with one large
SSD on / and do backups to external drive as you've done before.

In general, I wonder what Debian's policy is on Guix? Does it create a
FrankenDebian? I wonder the same about Debian-Multimedia too. Some
poeple seem to hate that, I use it for GPU accelerated ffmpeg for the
rare occasions when I need to encode video. And they package mplayer
too.

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

#242798

Anssi Saari wrote: 
> 
> In general, I wonder what Debian's policy is on Guix? Does it create a
> FrankenDebian? I wonder the same about Debian-Multimedia too. Some
> poeple seem to hate that, I use it for GPU accelerated ffmpeg for the
> rare occasions when I need to encode video. And they package mplayer
> too.

A FrankenDebian is a system where the repositories that .deb
packages come from have different owners and have the
possibility of conflicting with each other in ways that the
packaging system can't resolve by itself.

If you have a control system that uses apt to install packages,
that doesn't create a conflict at all.

If you have a control system that installs its own non .deb
packages in a way that doesn't break anything else -- say, using
/opt, /usr/local, /home/USER/something -- that doesn't create a
conflict. 

If you have a control system which installs things over the
standard directories, possibly with the same names, it's not a
FrankenDebian but it is very likely to be a borken system very
quickly.

Deb-Multimedia (note, changed its name to reduce the likelihood
of being confused with an official Debian project) provides a
repo of packages that can conflict and create a FrankenDebian.
That said, it is very useful in certain cases. Nobody wants to
help pick up the pieces, though.

-dsr-

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

#243114

Hello!  I apologize for the delay and reply below:

Em [2021-12-09 qui 11:36:17+0200], Anssi Saari escreveu:

> Are you really on a shoestring budget?  The SN550 comes in 1 TB size
> too.  You could put two SSDs on the system easily.

I am Brazilian and electronics here are far more expensive than in the
USA.  Besides, I am quite frugal and will be well served by 250 GB SSD
and 1 TB HDD, plus external disks that I need anyway for backup.

>> On the SSD I intend to leave 35 GB unpartitioned for extra over
>> provisioning.  It would have just one 215 GB partition.
>
> Does that actually help anything?  I see it more as a case of "SSDs
> are ice cream" fallacy from the decade before last.

>From what I've read, extra overprovisioning still significantly extends
SSD lifetime.  Many say that current SSD last long enough with just
default overprovisioning, but I play safe.  With 1 TB internal HDD and
1.5 TB external HDD, I can easily spare 35 GB on the SSD.

>> On the HDD I would put a 34 GB swap partition at the beginning
>
> If you're going to page, why page to the slow media?  Because the SSD
> is ice cream again and will melt away if used?

I might reconsider the swap though.  I run Gnome 3 (with many shell
extensions) often with many graphical web browsers---GNU IceCat, two
Mozilla Firefox profiles, and ungoogled-chromium---with more than a
hundred total tabs (although most of them suspended); a QEMU KVM VM with
2 GiB RAM; GNU Emacs with many buffers and applications; Gajim; GNU
Jami; Telegram; KeePassXC; and Gnome Terminal.  I also have tmpfs on
/tmp, where GNU Guix compiles packages.

Sometimes my 16 GiB RAM falls short and the swapping hurts.  Swapping to
the SSD could help a lot, and the benefit could outweigh the reduction
in lifetime as it would probably still last long enough.

>> ...then a 215 GB partition for RAID1 with the SSD...
> [...]
> I don't know what you expect to gain though?

I've dropped the RAID1 idea.  I intend to rely on weekly backups and
daily rsync of some of the data (chosen by importance; change frequency;
and size) to the other drive.

>> I would have tmpfs on /tmp---I have read that long thread where
>> someone alleged that moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useless but I
>> disagree.
>
> Any link to this discussion?  I really like tmpfs for /tmp but for
> everything there's resistance to change first and foremost.

LWN.net summary: https://lwn.net/Articles/499410/ "Temporary files: RAM
or disk?"

Summary by the thread initiator:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/06/msg00311.html "Summary:
Moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useless"

Regards

-- 
- Many people hate injustice but few check the facts; this causes more
  injustice.  Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
- Please adopt free/libre formats like PDF, Org, LaTeX, ODF, Opus, WebM and 7z.
- Libre apps for AOSP (Replicant, LineageOS, etc.) and Android: F-Droid
- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html "What is free software?"

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

#243149

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

On Ma, 14 dec 21, 14:30:10, Jorge P. de Morais Neto wrote:
> Hello!  I apologize for the delay and reply below:
> 
> Em [2021-12-09 qui 11:36:17+0200], Anssi Saari escreveu:
> 
> >> I would have tmpfs on /tmp---I have read that long thread where
> >> someone alleged that moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useless but I
> >> disagree.
> >
> > Any link to this discussion?  I really like tmpfs for /tmp but for
> > everything there's resistance to change first and foremost.
> 
> LWN.net summary: https://lwn.net/Articles/499410/ "Temporary files: RAM
> or disk?"
> 
> Summary by the thread initiator:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/06/msg00311.html "Summary:
> Moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useless"

That discussion is from 2012 (which in computing is ancient history), I 
wonder how much of it is still valid (either way).

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

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

#242802

On 2021-12-08 15:27, Jorge P. de Morais Neto wrote:
> Hi everyone!  I have a Dell Inspiron 5570 laptop with 1TB HDD and 16 GiB
> RAM (it supports 32 GiB).  I am about to buy an M.2 NVMe 250GB SSD---a
> Western Digital WD Blue SN550.  I would like to set the system for
> reliability, SSD durability¹ and performance.
> 
> I have looked at [Multi HDD/SSD Partitioning Scheme][] but it is too
> complex and probably outdated (last modified 2013-10-17).  I would like
> something simpler.  For backups, I would continue my weekly manual
> backups to my 1.5 TB external HDD with duplicity.
> 
> On the SSD I intend to leave 35 GB unpartitioned for extra over
> provisioning.  It would have just one 215 GB partition.
> 
> On the HDD I would put a 34 GB swap partition at the beginning, then a
> 215 GB partition for RAID1 with the SSD, then a 751 GB partition.  I
> intend to put Debian system *and* /home on the 215 GB RAID1, but I would
> set all the XDG user dirs² on the 751 GB HDD partition.  I would have
> tmpfs on /tmp---I have read that long thread where someone alleged that
> moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useless but I disagree.
> 
> Would all this be reasonable?  Do you recommend any change?  Any tip?  I
> run Debian stable with only official repositories, including
> bullseye-backports.  I also manually installed GNU Guix package manager
> and my main Guix profile has 163 packages.
> 
> Regards!
> 
> [Multi HDD/SSD Partitioning Scheme] https://wiki.debian.org/Multi%20HDD/SSD%20Partition%20Scheme
> 
> ¹ According to its data sheet, the 250GB WD Blue SN550 endures 150TBW.
> ² See the xdg-user-dir manpage.
> 

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.

Grx HdV

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

#242805

hdv@gmail wrote: 
> On 2021-12-08 15:27, Jorge P. de Morais Neto wrote:
> > Hi everyone!  I have a Dell Inspiron 5570 laptop with 1TB HDD and 16 GiB
> > RAM (it supports 32 GiB).  I am about to buy an M.2 NVMe 250GB SSD---a
 
> 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.

Swap is where a laptop stores RAM during suspend-to-disk, the long
term hibernation suspension. Without at least as much swap as
RAM, you are limited to suspend-to-RAM.

In a more perfect world, the space for suspension would not
otherwise be treated as swap space.

-dsr-

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

#242809

On 2021-12-09 15:46, Dan Ritter wrote:
> hdv@gmail wrote:
>> On 2021-12-08 15:27, Jorge P. de Morais Neto wrote:
>>> Hi everyone!  I have a Dell Inspiron 5570 laptop with 1TB HDD and 16 GiB
>>> RAM (it supports 32 GiB).  I am about to buy an M.2 NVMe 250GB SSD---a
>   
>> 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.
> 
> Swap is where a laptop stores RAM during suspend-to-disk, the long
> term hibernation suspension. Without at least as much swap as
> RAM, you are limited to suspend-to-RAM.
> 
> In a more perfect world, the space for suspension would not
> otherwise be treated as swap space.
> 
> -dsr-
> 

It certainly was the reason why I always had swap at least as big as RAM 
in the past on my laptops. However, I have not had any trouble 
suspending or hibernating my laptops in the years since I reduced swap 
to 2GB. That is just my experience, and it may not be the same for 
others. But it might help the thread starter to know this is a feasible 
option (depending on their use case).

P.S. I am on the list. It is sufficient to just reply to the list for me 
to receive your message.

Grx HdV

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

#242822

On 2021-12-09, hdv@gmail <hdv.jadev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Swap is where a laptop stores RAM during suspend-to-disk, the long
>> term hibernation suspension. Without at least as much swap as
>> RAM, you are limited to suspend-to-RAM.
>> 
>> In a more perfect world, the space for suspension would not
>> otherwise be treated as swap space.
>> 
>> -dsr-
>> 
>
> It certainly was the reason why I always had swap at least as big as RAM 
> in the past on my laptops. However, I have not had any trouble 
> suspending or hibernating my laptops in the years since I reduced swap 
> to 2GB. That is just my experience, and it may not be the same for 
> others. But it might help the thread starter to know this is a feasible 
> option (depending on their use case).

It's only that there is a distinction between suspend-to-RAM and
suspend-to-disk, the latter using zero power consumption until the
machine is powered on. 

Anyway, you probably already knew that (I didn't).

> P.S. I am on the list. It is sufficient to just reply to the list for me 
> to receive your message.
>
> Grx HdV
>
>


-- 

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

#242868

On Thu 09 Dec 2021 at 17:12:01 (-0000), Curt wrote:
> On 2021-12-09, hdv@gmail <hdv.jadev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Swap is where a laptop stores RAM during suspend-to-disk, the long
> >> term hibernation suspension. Without at least as much swap as
> >> RAM, you are limited to suspend-to-RAM.
> >> 
> >> In a more perfect world, the space for suspension would not
> >> otherwise be treated as swap space.
> >
> > It certainly was the reason why I always had swap at least as big as RAM 
> > in the past on my laptops. However, I have not had any trouble 
> > suspending or hibernating my laptops in the years since I reduced swap 
> > to 2GB. That is just my experience, and it may not be the same for 
> > others. But it might help the thread starter to know this is a feasible 
> > option (depending on their use case).
> 
> It's only that there is a distinction between suspend-to-RAM and
> suspend-to-disk, the latter using zero power consumption until the
> machine is powered on. 
> 
> Anyway, you probably already knew that (I didn't).

Aka hibernation, it's also incompatible with random-encrypted swap
(recommended in https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/12/msg00239.html,
and by me, if you have sensitive information on your laptop).

Cheers,
David.

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

#242879

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

On 10/12/2021 04:53, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 09 Dec 2021 at 17:12:01 (-0000), Curt wrote:
>> On 2021-12-09, hdv@gmail <hdv.jadev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Swap is where a laptop stores RAM during suspend-to-disk, the long
>>>> term hibernation suspension. Without at least as much swap as
>>>> RAM, you are limited to suspend-to-RAM.
>>>>
>>>> In a more perfect world, the space for suspension would not
>>>> otherwise be treated as swap space.
>>> It certainly was the reason why I always had swap at least as big as RAM
>>> in the past on my laptops. However, I have not had any trouble
>>> suspending or hibernating my laptops in the years since I reduced swap
>>> to 2GB. That is just my experience, and it may not be the same for
>>> others. But it might help the thread starter to know this is a feasible
>>> option (depending on their use case).
>> It's only that there is a distinction between suspend-to-RAM and
>> suspend-to-disk, the latter using zero power consumption until the
>> machine is powered on.
>>
>> Anyway, you probably already knew that (I didn't).
> Aka hibernation, it's also incompatible with random-encrypted swap
> (recommended in https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/12/msg00239.html,
> and by me, if you have sensitive information on your laptop).

It's a shame that TuxOnIce (aka Software Suspend 2) seems to have 
disappeared. That was a mostly-userspace hibernation solution that 
developed some quite neat tricks such as:

  * Mounting a swap device prior to hibernation

  * Graphical progress of hibernation

I seem to recall that, because it *was* a userspace solution, you needed 
to boot a certain amount of kernel and userspace before you could start 
resuming from hibernation, so there should have been a point where you 
could handle decryption (although, you would need a known key to decrypt 
the swap device, I suppose).


>
> Cheers,
> David.
>

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

#242865

> Swap is where a laptop stores RAM during suspend-to-disk, the long
> term hibernation suspension. Without at least as much swap as
> RAM, you are limited to suspend-to-RAM.

Actually, it's not that simple.  Instead, suspend-to-disk needs to store
into the free part of the swap the non-cache part of the RAM.  And it
usually compresses that data along the way.  So if you have 8GB of RAM
and say 6GB of it is dedicated to caches, suspend-to-disk only needs to
save 2GB of data into the swap, and with compression you can expect that
to use up less than 1GB of your swap.

But note that even with a 16GB swap partition suspend-to-disk may fail
for lack of swap space, if more than 15GB of the swap space was already
in use [ Admittedly, using 15GB if swap space while having 6GB of cache
in your RAM is quite unlikely, but it can happen.  ]


        Stefan

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

#242881

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

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.

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

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web