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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #195849 > unrolled thread

making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade

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

Contents

  making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Mark Copper <mcopper@straitcity.com> - 2018-05-18 01:10 +0200
    Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 01:40 +0200
      Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Mark Copper <mcopper@straitcity.com> - 2018-05-18 02:10 +0200
        Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-20 10:30 +0200
          Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Mark Copper <mcopper@straitcity.com> - 2018-05-21 18:20 +0200
            Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-05-21 18:50 +0200
              Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Mark Copper <mcopper@straitcity.com> - 2018-05-21 19:00 +0200
                Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-21 19:30 +0200
            Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-21 19:30 +0200
              Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Mark Copper <mcopper@straitcity.com> - 2018-05-25 02:30 +0200
                Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-25 20:30 +0200
    Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 03:10 +0200
    Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2018-05-18 03:30 +0200
      Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2018-05-18 13:10 +0200
        Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2018-05-18 14:10 +0200
    Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2018-05-18 05:00 +0200
    Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade ntrfug <ntrfug@cox.net> - 2018-05-19 16:30 +0200
      Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Charlie S <taoquester@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 08:00 +0200
        Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2018-05-20 14:40 +0200
          Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-20 15:10 +0200
            Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-20 16:30 +0200
              Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-05-20 16:40 +0200
                Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 17:30 +0200
                  Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-20 20:50 +0200
                    Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 21:40 +0200
                      Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-20 22:00 +0200
              Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-20 20:50 +0200
              Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-05-21 07:20 +0200
            Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2018-05-21 02:10 +0200
              Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2018-05-21 08:00 +0200
                Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-05-21 10:30 +0200
                  Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-05-21 11:00 +0200
                    Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-21 17:00 +0200
                      Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-21 21:10 +0200
                        Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-21 21:50 +0200
                          Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-21 22:20 +0200
                            Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-21 23:00 +0200
                            Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-21 23:20 +0200
                              Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 00:20 +0200
                                Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-22 20:30 +0200
                                  Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 21:00 +0200
                                    Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-22 22:30 +0200
                                      Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 23:30 +0200
                                  Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-05-22 22:00 +0200
                                  Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Jerome Kutche <n9lya@uronode.n9lya.ampr.org> - 2018-05-22 23:40 +0200
                                    Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-05-23 03:20 +0200
                                    Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-05-23 10:30 +0200
                  Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-05-21 14:20 +0200
                    Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade David Baron <dbaron770@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 15:10 +0200
                Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-05-21 16:00 +0200
                  Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Miroslav Skoric <skoric@eunet.rs> - 2018-05-25 11:40 +0200
                    Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-05-25 22:50 +0200
                      Re: making more room in root partition for distribution upgrade Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-25 23:20 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#196000

On Tue, 22 May 2018 20:29:21 +0200 Pascal Hambourg said:
> Le 22/05/2018 à 00:12, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu a écrit :
> > On Mon, 21 May 2018 23:18:50 +0200 Pascal Hambourg said:  
> >> Le 21/05/2018 à 22:09, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu a écrit :  
>>   
>>>> I would agree mirroring swap for a mission critical server. Otherwise it
>>>> would be an overkill, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> If one of the non-mirrored swaps go down, then I will get a system crash.
>>>> So?  
>>>
>>> So you lose system availability. If you can stand this, then you don't
>>> need availability.  
>> 
>> Although swap going offline causing "a system crash" was a bit of an
>> overstatement. More likely, some user space applications would crash,
>> allowing a graceful system shutdown - once in 15 years or so.
>> 
>> What is of primary value of using RAID-1 for me is protecting my data
>> against disk failures.
>> 
>> As for continuous system availability, yes I am willing to trade it a bit
>> on a non-critical system for better disk utilization and performance.  
> 
> I understand that your use case does not require swap redundancy.
> I hope that you also understand that other people may have stronger 
> requirements,

For example?

> and your statement about swap mirroring was wrong for them, thus wrong in
> general (what is not always right is wrong).

System management (any management for that matter) is full of compromises from
start to end. There is no such thing as "always right". Therefore your
right-wrong formula renders almost everything as "wrong".

As I have said previously, swap mirroring can be plausible for a mission
critical server, otherwise it is an overkill. This is a conditional statement.

Put another way, is there another use case where user space applications
crashing once in average 15 years is more unacceptable than the disadvantages
of swap mirroring that I have mentioned? I can't think of one, except a mission
critical 7/24 server.

Of course anyone is free to apply whatever strategy he chooses to manage his
own business. Whether it was a smart one or not is another question.

Regards
-- 
Abdullah Ramazanoğlu

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

#196003

Le 22/05/2018 à 20:55, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu a écrit :
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 20:29:21 +0200 Pascal Hambourg said:
>>
>> I understand that your use case does not require swap redundancy.
>> I hope that you also understand that other people may have stronger
>> requirements,
> 
> For example?

Any operational requirement which prohibits unplanned downtime caused by 
a disk failure. Do I really need to write such obviousness ? Call it 
"mission critical" if you like.

> As I have said previously, swap mirroring can be plausible for a mission
> critical server, otherwise it is an overkill. This is a conditional statement.

Your initial statement was not conditional.

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

#196004

Pascal Hambourg wrote:

>> For example?
> 
> Any operational requirement which prohibits unplanned downtime caused by
> a disk failure. Do I really need to write such obviousness ? Call it
> "mission critical" if you like.
> 
>> As I have said previously, swap mirroring can be plausible for a mission
>> critical server, otherwise it is an overkill. This is a conditional
>> statement.
> 
> Your initial statement was not conditional.

Thanks Pascal and respect!

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

#196001

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

On 23/05/18 06:29, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> I understand that your use case does not require swap redundancy.
> I hope that you also understand that other people may have stronger
> requirements and your statement about swap mirroring was wrong for them,
> thus wrong in general (what is not always right is wrong).

I'm not sure that's always right ...

Richard

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

#196005

Curious .. Why do I get two of every posting. What setting do I need to 
change.. Thanks Jerry

On 5/22/2018 2:29 PM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 22/05/2018 à 00:12, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu a écrit :
>> On Mon, 21 May 2018 23:18:50 +0200 Pascal Hambourg said:
>>> Le 21/05/2018 à 22:09, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu a écrit :
>>
>>>> I would agree mirroring swap for a mission critical server. 
>>>> Otherwise it
>>>> would be an overkill, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> If one of the non-mirrored swaps go down, then I will get a system 
>>>> crash.
>>>> So?
>>>
>>> So you lose system availability. If you can stand this, then you don't
>>> need availability.
>>
>> Although swap going offline causing "a system crash" was a bit of an
>> overstatement. More likely, some user space applications would crash, 
>> allowing
>> a graceful system shutdown - once in 15 years or so.
>>
>> What is of primary value of using RAID-1 for me is protecting my data 
>> against
>> disk failures.
>>
>> As for continuous system availability, yes I am willing to trade it a 
>> bit on a
>> non-critical system for better disk utilization and performance.
>
> I understand that your use case does not require swap redundancy.
> I hope that you also understand that other people may have stronger 
> requirements and your statement about swap mirroring was wrong for 
> them, thus wrong in general (what is not always right is wrong).
>
>

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

#196008

> Curious .. Why do I get two of every posting. What setting do I need to
> change.. Thanks Jerry

Search for the "Skip every other posting" option.


        Stefan

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

#196014

On 2018-05-22, Jerome Kutche <n9lya@uronode.n9lya.ampr.org> wrote:
> Curious .. Why do I get two of every posting. What setting do I need to 
> change.. Thanks Jerry
>

This might conceivably be poetic justice for top-posting and
thread-hijacking.

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

#195958

Le 21/05/2018 à 10:26, Curt a écrit :
> 
> Verily in the installer I chose automatic partitioning because of my
> partitioning phobia many moons ago and was allotted a 9G '/' and a 1.4T
> 'home' (as well as swap the size of my ego)
(...)
> (A recent thread seemed to imply that the installer's automagical
> partitioner for LVM leaves little or no empty room for growth, thus
> vitiating somewhat the very raison d'être of LVM at its root.)

Bottom line : do not use guided partitioning.

If you do not know what partition sizes you need, use LVM. Create 
volumes with minimal suitable sizes (you are not going to fill /home 
with 90% of the disk capacity at once, are you ?). This will leave 
plenty of free space. When you see that one volume begins to be filled, 
extend it. Simple and easy.

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

#195959

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

Yep. I ended up buying a second disk and moving everything around. The
installation is awful.

On Mon, May 21, 2018, 3:13 PM Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org>
wrote:

> Le 21/05/2018 à 10:26, Curt a écrit :
> >
> > Verily in the installer I chose automatic partitioning because of my
> > partitioning phobia many moons ago and was allotted a 9G '/' and a 1.4T
> > 'home' (as well as swap the size of my ego)
> (...)
> > (A recent thread seemed to imply that the installer's automagical
> > partitioner for LVM leaves little or no empty room for growth, thus
> > vitiating somewhat the very raison d'être of LVM at its root.)
>
> Bottom line : do not use guided partitioning.
>
> If you do not know what partition sizes you need, use LVM. Create
> volumes with minimal suitable sizes (you are not going to fill /home
> with 90% of the disk capacity at once, are you ?). This will leave
> plenty of free space. When you see that one volume begins to be filled,
> extend it. Simple and easy.
>
>

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

#195962

On Mon 21 May 2018 at 05:50:27 (+0000), Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 07:59:48PM -0400, songbird wrote:
> > Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > > Then LVM is your friend. You can create as many logical volumes as you 
> > > like with minimal sizes and easily extend them when needed. This way you 
> > > don't waste space in overprovisioning.
> > 
> >   added complexity for a simple system such as mine
> > is rather pointless.
> 
> I hear that a lot from people who later find themselves doing
> cosmetic surgery on their partition table because they weren't able
> to initially size things properly.

It's called sampling bias. You're not going to hear from all the
people who are happy with their choices of partition sizes.

Two more biases:

There seems to be some kudos for running a slimly partitioned system.
Nobody's going to brag about a system with a 100GB root partition.

And then there's history/lag/call it what you will. My first Debian
(buzz) ran on a 2GB drive. Any post from a few years ago is likely to
report partition sizes that now seem rather on the small side.
As for appendix C in the Installation Manual, well that looks like
a bit of a joke: who's running linux in 256MB memory, let alone 16MB?

Like with Joe, as disk replacements have got larger over time, so have
my root partitions. 16GB has proved adequate for two laptops that are
seriously into their dotage, and I now create ones sized ~36GB.
(I should say "twos" rather than "ones", as I always create them in
pairs.)  Not forgetting the ef00 and ef02 partitions too, even if
they're never used in anger.

Cheers,
David.

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

#196064

On 05/21/2018 03:55 PM, David Wright wrote:

> As for appendix C in the Installation Manual, well that looks like
> a bit of a joke: who's running linux in 256MB memory, let alone 16MB?
> 

One of my older machines still runs Wheezy LTS in 224 MB RAM. And soon I 
am going to try an upgrade to Jessie.

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

#196076

On Fri 25 May 2018 at 11:19:58 (+0200), Miroslav Skoric wrote:
> On 05/21/2018 03:55 PM, David Wright wrote:
> 
> >As for appendix C in the Installation Manual, well that looks like
> >a bit of a joke: who's running linux in 256MB memory, let alone 16MB?
> >
> 
> One of my older machines still runs Wheezy LTS in 224 MB RAM. And
> soon I am going to try an upgrade to Jessie.

Another data point to support my thesis on sampling bias, but you've
given no indication of what you're able to run in that amount of
memory, what swap space you have, etc.

You selected these words: "appendix C in the Installation Manual, well
that looks like a bit of a joke". Let me quote a paragraph from the
stable (stretch) version of June 2017 (§C.3):

  "As an example, an older home machine might have 32MB of RAM and a
  1.7GB IDE drive on /dev/sda. There might be a 500MB partition for
  another operating system on /dev/sda1, a 32MB swap partition on
  /dev/sda3 and about 1.2GB on /dev/sda2 as the Linux partition."

Now here's an earlier version that reads almost the same:

  "As an example, the author's home machine has 32MB of RAM and a
  1.7GB IDE drive on /dev/hda. There is a 500MB DOS partition on
  /dev/hda1 (should have made it 200MB as it never gets used).
  A 32MB swap partition is used on /dev/hda3 and the rest
  (about 1.2GB on /dev/hda2) is the Linux partition."

That was written on 23 June, 1998 for Debian Linux 2.0 (hamm), which
would run in 4MB RAM with 40MB of diskspace.

Cheers,
David.

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

#196077

On Fri, 25 May 2018 15:48:07 -0500 David Wright said:
> On Fri 25 May 2018 at 11:19:58 (+0200), Miroslav Skoric wrote:
>> On 05/21/2018 03:55 PM, David Wright wrote:
>>   
>>> As for appendix C in the Installation Manual, well that looks like
>>> a bit of a joke: who's running linux in 256MB memory, let alone 16MB?
>> 
>> One of my older machines still runs Wheezy LTS in 224 MB RAM. And
>> soon I am going to try an upgrade to Jessie.  
> 
> Another data point to support my thesis on sampling bias, but you've
> given no indication of what you're able to run in that amount of
> memory, what swap space you have, etc.

Once I was using a roughly similar (may be less RAM) 486 machine with 10G or so
hard disk, put together from the waste bin of the company, to run a hylafax fax
server on bare Debian installation. There was enough CPU/RAM/disk room left,
that I could have also burdened it as well with print services or something.

Regards
-- 
Abdullah Ramazanoğlu

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web