Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #203870 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-03 16:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2019-01-04 16:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 94 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 16:00 +0100
Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 17:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem steve <dlist@bluewin.ch> - 2019-01-03 17:40 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2019-01-03 18:30 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 18:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 17:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 18:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 18:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-03 19:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 20:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-03 20:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-03 20:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 21:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 21:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-03 21:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 22:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Frank Weißer <linux@weisser-ol.de> - 2019-01-04 10:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 21:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-03 22:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 23:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-03 23:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 01:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-04 11:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 13:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-04 13:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 19:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 20:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 21:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 21:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 20:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 22:10 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 08:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 20:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 20:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 20:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-01-03 23:10 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-04 14:10 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 03:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-04 14:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 14:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-04 15:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 19:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 21:00 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-01-04 21:30 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 23:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 01:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-05 06:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-04 15:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 18:10 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-03 21:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-03 19:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 19:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 20:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 20:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 21:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 21:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 22:10 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2019-01-04 03:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 09:10 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 03:40 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-04 04:50 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-01-04 09:50 +0100
Overhead of LVM (Re: Upgrade Problem) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-04 14:20 +0100
Re: Overhead of LVM (Re: Upgrade Problem) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-01-04 14:30 +0100
Re: Overhead of LVM (Re: Upgrade Problem) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 05:10 +0100
Re: Overhead of LVM (Re: Upgrade Problem) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-01-05 08:40 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-01-04 21:10 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Stefan Krusche <linux@stefan-krusche.de> - 2019-03-10 14:30 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-04 11:20 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 18:20 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 18:40 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 03:20 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-01-04 03:50 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-01-04 10:00 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-04 10:40 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 17:30 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 21:30 +0100
Re: allocating disk space (was: Upgrade Problem) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-05 01:40 +0100
Re: allocating disk space (was: Upgrade Problem) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-10 01:10 +0100
Re: allocating disk space Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-11 08:20 +0100
Re: allocating disk space David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-13 14:20 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 11:50 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-01-04 13:00 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-04 14:30 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2019-01-03 20:00 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 20:40 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-03 21:00 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-03 21:10 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 16:00 +0100
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcCHE-3Ir-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203982 |
David Wright composed on 2019-01-04 10:19 (UTC-0600): > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 04:30:00 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: >>> This partitioning scheme seems really odd and unwieldy. >> Indeed. Considering the absence of a sysadmin, > What's so unusual about that? Standing alone, absolutely nothing, but it wasn't standing alone.... >> absence of 2 possible primary partitions on sda, > If the OP partitioned an MBR disk intending to subdivide the > filesystem, then it might be expected that they create an extended > partition. Why bother with holding off until you've got two > primary partitions set up first? Off the top of my head: 1-trivial I know, but avoiding seeing fdisk report "Partition table entries are not in disk order" 2-less trivial: partitions not being in disk order 3-potential to have a primary partition added following a logical, thereby making following freespace unavailable for one or more added logicals (disappearing freespace). >> and the absence of sda6, > I assume that's swap. Yes, but: # df -hl Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 23G 23G 0 100% / /dev/sda2 ? extended (presumably) /dev/sda5 9.2G 6.0G 2.8G 69% /var /dev/sda6 ? ? ? swap /dev/sda7 1.9G 6.5M 1.7G 1% /tmp /dev/sda8 416G 103G 292G 27% /home ?freespace? ? Where is the logic responsible for the original allocations? Would any Debian Installer have done it without intervention from the admin? It looks like the work of a naive admin. Yet, OP claimed "I haven't messed around with partitioning since the early days of Slackware, and that was with a great deal of trepidation". > ...but the OP would become a better sysadmin by learning something during the cleanup. Indeed! -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 21:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcEgq-4JU-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204005 |
On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 13:41:33 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: > David Wright composed on 2019-01-04 10:19 (UTC-0600): > > > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 04:30:00 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: > > >>> This partitioning scheme seems really odd and unwieldy. > > >> Indeed. Considering the absence of a sysadmin, > > > What's so unusual about that? > > Standing alone, absolutely nothing, but it wasn't standing alone.... (The OP is standing alone, leaving us aside.) By snipping the rhetorical question that introduces my paragraph, it now appears that "unusual" refers to the partitioning scheme. It doesn't. It refers to the absence of a sysadmin. Here's the paragraph again: “What's so unusual about that? For a long time I ran linux and work but didn't consider myself an "operator" or "sysadmin". Employees in those categories ran closed shops of MS and Apple kit, plus a splinter group running what they considered "proper" unix on kit that I couldn't start to afford. Most of mine was 2nd hand PC cast offs.” > >> absence of 2 possible primary partitions on sda, > > > If the OP partitioned an MBR disk intending to subdivide the > > filesystem, then it might be expected that they create an extended > > partition. Why bother with holding off until you've got two > > primary partitions set up first? > > Off the top of my head: > > 1-trivial I know, but avoiding seeing fdisk report "Partition table entries are not in disk order" > > 2-less trivial: partitions not being in disk order I don't understand. The time sequence would be sda1=primary [ free ] sda1=primary [ "sda2"=extended ] sda1=primary [ sda5=logical free ] sda1=primary [ sda5=logical sda6=logical free ] sda1=primary [ sda5=logical sda6=logical sda7=logical free ] sda1=primary [ sda5=logical sda6=logical sda7=logical sda8=logical possibly-free ] What's out of order? > 3-potential to have a primary partition added following a logical, thereby making following > freespace unavailable for one or more added logicals (disappearing freespace). With the scenario above, it would be usual to fill the disk with the extended partition, so there's no possibility of adding another primary. There may be occasional instances like the following squence, but they'd be pretty rare in comparison: sda1=primary sda2=primary sda3=primary sda4=primary sda1=primary free sda3=primary sda4=primary sda1=primary "sda2"=extended sda3=primary sda4=primary > >> and the absence of sda6, > > > I assume that's swap. Yes. > Yes, but: > > # df -hl > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > /dev/sda1 23G 23G 0 100% / > /dev/sda2 ? extended (presumably) > /dev/sda5 9.2G 6.0G 2.8G 69% /var > /dev/sda6 ? ? ? swap > /dev/sda7 1.9G 6.5M 1.7G 1% /tmp > /dev/sda8 416G 103G 292G 27% /home > ?freespace? ? > > Where is the logic responsible for the original allocations? Would any Debian Installer have done it > without intervention from the admin? It looks like the work of a naive admin. Yet, OP claimed "I > haven't messed around with partitioning since the early days of Slackware, and that was with a great > deal of trepidation". We have no idea without being told the earlier history of the scheme, what the intent was at the time of creating them, and how their subsequent use evolved. Here's the partition table of this laptop. Care to guess it's evolution? Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size 1 2048 2050047 1000.0 MiB 2 2050048 2582527 260.0 MiB 3 2582528 4630527 1000.0 MiB 4 4630528 4892671 128.0 MiB 5 4892672 347348991 163.3 GiB 6 347348992 429268991 39.1 GiB / 7 429268992 511188991 39.1 GiB 8 511188992 883275775 177.4 GiB /home 9 883275776 883292159 8.0 MiB 10 883292160 892084223 4.2 GiB swap 11 892086272 892803071 350.0 MiB 12 892803072 894900223 1024.0 MiB 13 894900224 947329023 25.0 GiB 14 947329024 976773119 14.0 GiB Constrained by an inability to repartition the disk, how would you distribute a Debian system across it while wasting the least space? Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 01:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: allocating disk space (was: Upgrade Problem) |
| Message-ID | <xcIam-72E-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204027 |
David Wright composed on 2019-01-04 14:27 (UTC-0600): > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 13:41:33 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: >> David Wright composed on 2019-01-04 10:19 (UTC-0600): >> > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 04:30:00 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: >> >>> This partitioning scheme seems really odd and unwieldy. >> >> Indeed. Considering the absence of a sysadmin, >> > What's so unusual about that? >> Standing alone, absolutely nothing, but it wasn't standing alone.... > (The OP is standing alone, leaving us aside.) > By snipping the rhetorical question that introduces my paragraph, it > now appears that "unusual" refers to the partitioning scheme. It > doesn't. It wasn't intended to. > It refers to the absence of a sysadmin. Intended. >> >> absence of 2 possible primary partitions on sda, >> >> > If the OP partitioned an MBR disk intending to subdivide the >> > filesystem, then it might be expected that they create an extended >> > partition. Why bother with holding off until you've got two >> > primary partitions set up first? >> Off the top of my head: >> 1-trivial I know, but avoiding seeing fdisk report "Partition table entries are not in disk order" >> 2-less trivial: partitions not being in disk order > I don't understand. The time sequence would be > sda1=primary [ free ] > sda1=primary [ "sda2"=extended ] > sda1=primary [ sda5=logical free ] > sda1=primary [ sda5=logical sda6=logical free ] > sda1=primary [ sda5=logical sda6=logical sda7=logical free ] > sda1=primary [ sda5=logical sda6=logical sda7=logical sda8=logical possibly-free ] > What's out of order? This looks like it's assuming reference to the OP's disk state, which is not what I was writing about. AFAIK, when entries /are/ out of order, far more steps had to have been involved than those you listed. >> 3-potential to have a primary partition added following a logical, thereby making following >> freespace unavailable for one or more added logicals (disappearing freespace). > With the scenario above, it would be usual to fill the disk with the > extended partition, so there's no possibility of adding another primary. Yes, when filling the disk at the outset. With the escalation of disk sizes over the years, it's become more common not to allocate 100% at the outset. In non-ancient memory I only ever fully allocated with my own disks at the outset with data disks, until small SDDs became cheap. Some partitioning tools are better than others at allowing oneself to shoot oneself in the foot. > Here's the partition table of this laptop. Care to guess it's > evolution? > Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size > 1 2048 2050047 1000.0 MiB > 2 2050048 2582527 260.0 MiB > 3 2582528 4630527 1000.0 MiB > 4 4630528 4892671 128.0 MiB > 5 4892672 347348991 163.3 GiB > 6 347348992 429268991 39.1 GiB / > 7 429268992 511188991 39.1 GiB > 8 511188992 883275775 177.4 GiB /home > 9 883275776 883292159 8.0 MiB > 10 883292160 892084223 4.2 GiB swap > 11 892086272 892803071 350.0 MiB > 12 892803072 894900223 1024.0 MiB > 13 894900224 947329023 25.0 GiB > 14 947329024 976773119 14.0 GiB > Constrained by an inability to repartition the disk, how would > you distribute a Debian system across it while wasting the > least space? That's a bit sketchy. How about you do one of mine? Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size 1 63 80324 39.2 MiB 2 80325 578339 243.2 MiB 3 578340 1397654 400.1 MiB 5 1397718 3502169 1.0 GiB swap 6 3502233 17848214 6.8 GiB WinSYS 7 17848278 30137939 5.9 GiB / 8 30138003 35053829 2.3 GiB /home 9 35053893 44451854 4.5 GiB 10 44451918 46540304 1019.7 MiB /usr/local 11 46540368 58010714 5.5 GiB / 12 58010778 69481124 5.5 GiB / 13 69481188 80951534 5.5 GiB / 14 80951598 92421944 5.5 GiB / 15 92422008 103892354 5.5 GiB / 16 103892418 115362764 5.5 GiB / 17 115362828 126833174 5.5 GiB / 18 126833238 138303584 5.5 GiB / 19 138303648 149773994 5.5 GiB / 20 149774058 161244404 5.5 GiB / 21 161244468 172714814 5.5 GiB / 22 172714878 184185224 5.5 GiB / 23 184185288 195655634 5.5 GiB / 24 195655698 207126044 5.5 GiB / 25 207126108 218596454 5.5 GiB / 26 218596518 230066864 5.5 GiB / 27 230066928 241537274 5.5 GiB / 28 241537338 253007684 5.5 GiB 29 253007748 264478094 5.5 GiB / 30 264478158 275948504 5.5 GiB / 31 275948568 287418914 5.5 GiB / 32 287418978 298889324 5.5 GiB / 33 937312488 961361729 11.5 GiB Win data 34 961361793 975707774 6.8 GiB 35 975707838 976751999 509.8 MiB 36 976752063 976768064 7.8 MiB Note the relative vastness of unused space. Can't tell the players without a program: http://fm.no-ip.com/Tmp/gx62b.txt BTW, 36 is near an average count here. I have one with 57, more than one with >40, and probably >8 with >30. My newest PC has 50, though spread across 3 disks, with 20 comprising 10 RAID1 devices, and zero freespace remaining for partition creation. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 01:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: allocating disk space (was: Upgrade Problem) |
| Message-ID | <xew54-xD-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204053 |
On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 19:36:42 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: > David Wright composed on 2019-01-04 14:27 (UTC-0600): > > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 13:41:33 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: > >> David Wright composed on 2019-01-04 10:19 (UTC-0600): > >> > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 04:30:00 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: > > >> >>> This partitioning scheme seems really odd and unwieldy. > > >> >> Indeed. Considering the absence of a sysadmin, > > >> > What's so unusual about that? > > >> Standing alone, absolutely nothing, but it wasn't standing alone.... > > > (The OP is standing alone, leaving us aside.) > > > By snipping the rhetorical question that introduces my paragraph, it > > now appears that "unusual" refers to the partitioning scheme. It > > doesn't. > > It wasn't intended to. > > > It refers to the absence of a sysadmin. > > Intended. > > >> >> absence of 2 possible primary partitions on sda, > >> > >> > If the OP partitioned an MBR disk intending to subdivide the > >> > filesystem, then it might be expected that they create an extended > >> > partition. Why bother with holding off until you've got two > >> > primary partitions set up first? > > >> Off the top of my head: > > >> 1-trivial I know, but avoiding seeing fdisk report "Partition table entries are not in disk order" > > >> 2-less trivial: partitions not being in disk order > > > I don't understand. The time sequence would be > > > sda1=primary [ free ] > > > sda1=primary [ "sda2"=extended ] > > > sda1=primary [ sda5=logical free ] > > > sda1=primary [ sda5=logical sda6=logical free ] > > > sda1=primary [ sda5=logical sda6=logical sda7=logical free ] > > > sda1=primary [ sda5=logical sda6=logical sda7=logical sda8=logical possibly-free ] > > > What's out of order? > > This looks like it's assuming reference to the OP's disk state, which is not what I was writing > about. AFAIK, when entries /are/ out of order, far more steps had to have been involved than those > you listed. > > >> 3-potential to have a primary partition added following a logical, thereby making following > >> freespace unavailable for one or more added logicals (disappearing freespace). > > > With the scenario above, it would be usual to fill the disk with the > > extended partition, so there's no possibility of adding another primary. > > Yes, when filling the disk at the outset. With the escalation of disk sizes over the years, it's > become more common not to allocate 100% at the outset. In non-ancient memory I only ever fully > allocated with my own disks at the outset with data disks, until small SDDs became cheap. I don't understand the reasoning. > Some partitioning tools are better than others at allowing oneself to shoot oneself in the foot. > > > Here's the partition table of this laptop. Care to guess it's > > evolution? > > > Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size > > 1 2048 2050047 1000.0 MiB > > 2 2050048 2582527 260.0 MiB > > 3 2582528 4630527 1000.0 MiB > > 4 4630528 4892671 128.0 MiB > > 5 4892672 347348991 163.3 GiB > > 6 347348992 429268991 39.1 GiB / > > 7 429268992 511188991 39.1 GiB > > 8 511188992 883275775 177.4 GiB /home > > 9 883275776 883292159 8.0 MiB > > 10 883292160 892084223 4.2 GiB swap > > 11 892086272 892803071 350.0 MiB > > 12 892803072 894900223 1024.0 MiB > > 13 894900224 947329023 25.0 GiB > > 14 947329024 976773119 14.0 GiB > > > Constrained by an inability to repartition the disk, how would > > you distribute a Debian system across it while wasting the > > least space? > > That's a bit sketchy. Worse then that: I don't have a clue what most of the original partitions were for, and still don't. I just don't touch them. Here's what I inherited: /dev/sda1 2048 2050047 2048000 1000M Windows recovery environment /dev/sda2 2050048 2582527 532480 260M EFI System /dev/sda3 2582528 4630527 2048000 1000M Lenovo boot partition /dev/sda4 4630528 4892671 262144 128M Microsoft reserved /dev/sda5 4892672 892086271 887193600 423G Microsoft basic data /dev/sda6 892086272 892803071 716800 350M Windows recovery environment /dev/sda7 892803072 894900223 2097152 1G Microsoft basic data /dev/sda8 894900224 947329023 52428800 25G Microsoft basic data /dev/sda9 947329024 976773119 29444096 14G Windows recovery environment I have no idea why there are three recovery partitions of vastly differing sizes, a manufacturer's boot partition, a reserved partition and two extra basic data partitions. Anyway, by shrinking the windows partition sda5, I was able to carve out five linux partitions for me: 6 347348992 429268991 39.1 GiB 8300 Linux-A 7 429268992 511188991 39.1 GiB 8300 Linux-B 8 511188992 883275775 177.4 GiB 8300 Linux-Home 9 883275776 883292159 8.0 MiB EF02 Linux-BIOS-Boot 10 883292160 892084223 4.2 GiB 8200 Linux-Swap Given all 14 partitions to play with, it would be difficult to install a system that didn't look unusual in its layout. > How about you do one of mine? > Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size > 1 63 80324 39.2 MiB > 2 80325 578339 243.2 MiB > 3 578340 1397654 400.1 MiB > 5 1397718 3502169 1.0 GiB swap > 6 3502233 17848214 6.8 GiB WinSYS > 7 17848278 30137939 5.9 GiB / > 8 30138003 35053829 2.3 GiB /home > 9 35053893 44451854 4.5 GiB > 10 44451918 46540304 1019.7 MiB /usr/local > 11 46540368 58010714 5.5 GiB / > 12 58010778 69481124 5.5 GiB / > 13 69481188 80951534 5.5 GiB / > 14 80951598 92421944 5.5 GiB / > 15 92422008 103892354 5.5 GiB / > 16 103892418 115362764 5.5 GiB / > 17 115362828 126833174 5.5 GiB / > 18 126833238 138303584 5.5 GiB / > 19 138303648 149773994 5.5 GiB / > 20 149774058 161244404 5.5 GiB / > 21 161244468 172714814 5.5 GiB / > 22 172714878 184185224 5.5 GiB / > 23 184185288 195655634 5.5 GiB / > 24 195655698 207126044 5.5 GiB / > 25 207126108 218596454 5.5 GiB / > 26 218596518 230066864 5.5 GiB / > 27 230066928 241537274 5.5 GiB / > 28 241537338 253007684 5.5 GiB > 29 253007748 264478094 5.5 GiB / > 30 264478158 275948504 5.5 GiB / > 31 275948568 287418914 5.5 GiB / > 32 287418978 298889324 5.5 GiB / > > 33 937312488 961361729 11.5 GiB Win data > 34 961361793 975707774 6.8 GiB > 35 975707838 976751999 509.8 MiB > 36 976752063 976768064 7.8 MiB > > Note the relative vastness of unused space. You're not the guy who boots >>100 systems off one disk, are you? > Can't tell the players without a program: > http://fm.no-ip.com/Tmp/gx62b.txt > > BTW, 36 is near an average count here. I have one with 57, more than one with >40, and probably >8 > with >30. My newest PC has 50, though spread across 3 disks, with 20 comprising 10 RAID1 devices, > and zero freespace remaining for partition creation. Oh, perhaps you're a rival. :) I assume you foresee adding a lot more versions of linux; only three Debian so far? And I would miss a real DOS like the old favourite 6.22. But seriously, take a drive, stick on (or inherit) a root partition (1), decide you're going to divide up the (MBR-based) system, hence create (or inherit) an extended partition. Hive off /var (5), remember your swap (6), /tmp (7) might be a good idea, the rest for /home (8). Nothing unusual there, and that's what the OP showed. In fact, that's similar to what I was doing in 1997, except that sda1 was MSDOS and / was in the extended partition with all the rest. OTOH your disk, and mine listed above, are the atypical ones. On a typical disk in a PC I consider my own, the layout is much simpler: Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size Code Name 1 2048 8191 3.0 MiB EF02 BIOS boot partition 2 8192 1023999 496.0 MiB EF00 EFI System 3 1024000 2047999 500.0 MiB 8200 Linux swap 4 2048000 63487999 29.3 GiB 8300 Ezra-A 5 63488000 124927999 29.3 GiB 8300 Ezra-B 6 124928000 976773119 406.2 GiB 8300 Ezra-Home Odd to have 1 and 2: currently BIOS boots it on a GPT disk, but it's prepared for use if I get my hands on an old newer machine (or is that new older?). Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-11 08:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: allocating disk space |
| Message-ID | <xeZgJ-1w7-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204275 |
David Wright composed on 2019-01-09 14:26 (UTC-0600): > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 19:36:42 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: >> Yes, when filling the disk at the outset. With the escalation of disk sizes over the years, it's >> become more common not to allocate 100% at the outset. In non-ancient memory I only ever fully >> allocated with my own disks at the outset with data disks, until small SDDs became cheap. > I don't understand the reasoning. A Murphy corollary: Junk accumulates according to the amount of space available for it to fill. Make the space available when you really need it, and it won't be preoccupied with junk. >> Note the relative vastness of unused space. > You're not the guy who boots >>100 systems off one disk, are you? The one I remember was long ago, not 100 I think, but more than 50, likely before libata introduction's 15 partition limit. I recently looked for his page but failed to find. >> BTW, 36 is near an average count here. I have one with 57, more than one with >40, and >> probably 8 with >30. My newest PC has 50, though spread across 3 disks, with 20 >> comprising 10 RAID1 devices, and zero freespace remaining for partition creation. > Oh, perhaps you're a rival. :) I assume you foresee adding a lot more > versions of linux; only three Debian so far? And I would miss a real > DOS like the old favourite 6.22. Except for Etch, I was only using Kubuntu's miscreant Debians until Jessie. All my 6.22s got replaced with PC DOS 2000 as soon as impending Y2K caused its availability. DOS 5 remains available under cover of OS/2's eComStation progeny (which here runs 24/7). > ... if I get my hands on an old newer machine (or is that new older?). I get those more often than new-in-original-box, more often broken, which I am often able to resurrect. Maybe call them nacqres, for newly acquired resurrection/recycle/refurb. :-) -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-13 14:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: allocating disk space |
| Message-ID | <xfNQd-7aM-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204306 |
On Fri 11 Jan 2019 at 02:12:19 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: > David Wright composed on 2019-01-09 14:26 (UTC-0600): > > > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 19:36:42 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: > > >> Yes, when filling the disk at the outset. With the escalation of disk sizes over the years, it's > >> become more common not to allocate 100% at the outset. In non-ancient memory I only ever fully > >> allocated with my own disks at the outset with data disks, until small SDDs became cheap. > > > I don't understand the reasoning. > > A Murphy corollary: Junk accumulates according to the amount of space available for it to fill. > Make the space available when you really need it, and it won't be preoccupied with junk. Fine, if it helps you. I was unaware that anyone did this for that reason. I know there are more technical difficulties with shrinking partitions than with expanding them, and thought it might be to do with that. > >> Note the relative vastness of unused space. > > > You're not the guy who boots >>100 systems off one disk, are you? > > The one I remember was long ago, not 100 I think, but more than 50, likely before libata > introduction's 15 partition limit. I recently looked for his page but failed to find. 100 was superceded long ago; it was 145 by August 2016 when I last looked. http://forums.justlinux.com/showthread.php?147959-How-to-install-and-boot-145-operating-systems-in-a-PC > >> BTW, 36 is near an average count here. I have one with 57, more than one with >40, and > >> probably 8 with >30. My newest PC has 50, though spread across 3 disks, with 20 > >> comprising 10 RAID1 devices, and zero freespace remaining for partition creation. > > > Oh, perhaps you're a rival. :) I assume you foresee adding a lot more > > versions of linux; only three Debian so far? And I would miss a real > > DOS like the old favourite 6.22. > > Except for Etch, I was only using Kubuntu's miscreant Debians until Jessie. All my 6.22s got > replaced with PC DOS 2000 as soon as impending Y2K caused its availability. DOS 5 remains available > under cover of OS/2's eComStation progeny (which here runs 24/7). > > > ... if I get my hands on an old newer machine (or is that new older?). > > I get those more often than new-in-original-box, more often broken, which I am often able to > resurrect. Maybe call them nacqres, for newly acquired resurrection/recycle/refurb. :-) In the past, the (desktop) systems I acquired were mainly deficient in diskspace. Fortunately I managed to tap the source of 1GB disks that were being used to make it possible to upgrade the secretaries' windows systems (whose older PCs I was acquiring). Occasionally I added memory (or "stole" it from other machines). Since I retired, I've only bought disks. I've never had a new PC. The three desktops I run date from 2000 and 2006 (2). Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 11:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcvd7-7Er-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203942 |
On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 08:57:18 +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 02:47:52AM +0000, Matthew Crews wrote:
> > My guess? /home is on the same partition as /, which is a common setup
> > for most end users. Running lsblk is one way to tell if this is the case.
>
> >From one of Stephen's earlier emails:
>
> root@AbNormal:/home/comp# df -hl
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> udev 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /dev
> tmpfs 789M 18M 772M 3% /run
> /dev/sda1 23G 23G 0 100% /
> tmpfs 3.9G 18M 3.9G 1% /dev/shm
> tmpfs 5.0M 8.0K 5.0M 1% /run/lock
> tmpfs 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
> /dev/sda7 1.9G 6.5M 1.7G 1% /tmp
> /dev/sda5 9.2G 6.0G 2.8G 69% /var
> /dev/sda8 416G 103G 292G 27% /home
> /dev/sdc1 20G 301M 19G 2% /sdc1
> /dev/sdc2 439G 169G 270G 39% /sdc2
> /dev/sdb1 1.8T 288G 1.5T 17% /sdb1
> tmpfs 789M 4.0K 789M 1% /run/user/110
> tmpfs 789M 28K 789M 1% /run/user/1000
>
> i.e. /home is already on a separate partition.
>
> Several people have now suggested saving space in a bits of the
> filesystem that Stephen has on dedicated partitions, so this is not
> helpful.
>
> This partitioning scheme seems really odd and unwieldy. So much
> wasted space on partitions that will never need anything like what
> they have been assigned. This seems like a great example of how not
> to partition a system - anyone thinking of using this many
> partitions really should consider LVM in future.
>
> Anyway, Stephen, you need to focus on finding useless things in / and
> either removing them or moving them elsewhere. If it's just data
> then it looks like somewhere under /home would be a good choice as
> it has 292G available.
>
> Ask before deleting anything you don't fully understand.
1. First assess what the space on / is allocated to.
du -hs /lib/
du -hs /etc/
du -hs /usr/
du -hs /usr/bin/
du -hs /usr/local/
etc, etc.
2. Then go through
dpkg -l | less
line by line, asking "do I really need that?". I'd not bother with
looking at the library packages. Tedious? Yes, like tidying the boot
of a car.
3. Purge what is not wanted ("do I really need ten kernel packages?)
with apt and occasionally use 'apt --purge autoremove', keeping an
eye on 'df -hl'.
--
Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 13:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcwiR-8gk-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203951 |
Hi. On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:42:57AM +0000, Brian wrote: > On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 08:57:18 +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 02:47:52AM +0000, Matthew Crews wrote: > > > My guess? /home is on the same partition as /, which is a common setup > > > for most end users. Running lsblk is one way to tell if this is the case. > > > > >From one of Stephen's earlier emails: > > > > root@AbNormal:/home/comp# df -hl > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > > udev 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /dev > > tmpfs 789M 18M 772M 3% /run > > /dev/sda1 23G 23G 0 100% / > > tmpfs 3.9G 18M 3.9G 1% /dev/shm > > tmpfs 5.0M 8.0K 5.0M 1% /run/lock > > tmpfs 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup > > /dev/sda7 1.9G 6.5M 1.7G 1% /tmp > > /dev/sda5 9.2G 6.0G 2.8G 69% /var > > /dev/sda8 416G 103G 292G 27% /home > > /dev/sdc1 20G 301M 19G 2% /sdc1 > > /dev/sdc2 439G 169G 270G 39% /sdc2 > > /dev/sdb1 1.8T 288G 1.5T 17% /sdb1 > > tmpfs 789M 4.0K 789M 1% /run/user/110 > > tmpfs 789M 28K 789M 1% /run/user/1000 > > > > i.e. /home is already on a separate partition. > > > > Several people have now suggested saving space in a bits of the > > filesystem that Stephen has on dedicated partitions, so this is not > > helpful. > > > > This partitioning scheme seems really odd and unwieldy. So much > > wasted space on partitions that will never need anything like what > > they have been assigned. This seems like a great example of how not > > to partition a system - anyone thinking of using this many > > partitions really should consider LVM in future. > > > > Anyway, Stephen, you need to focus on finding useless things in / and > > either removing them or moving them elsewhere. If it's just data > > then it looks like somewhere under /home would be a good choice as > > it has 292G available. > > > > Ask before deleting anything you don't fully understand. > > 1. First assess what the space on / is allocated to. > > du -hs /lib/ > du -hs /etc/ > du -hs /usr/ > du -hs /usr/bin/ > du -hs /usr/local/ du -xh / | sort -h Why bother typing several commands if you can type one? Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 14:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcxHX-MG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203951 |
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:42:57AM +0000, Brian wrote: > 2. Then go through > > dpkg -l | less > > line by line, asking "do I really need that?". I'd not bother with > looking at the library packages. Tedious? Yes, like tidying the boot > of a car. There are some tools that will show you the packages sorted by size. I wrote one in perl a couple decades ago: https://wooledge.org/~greg/ds There are other, fancier ones, but I still like mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | songbird <songbird@anthive.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcgnL-75U-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203870 |
Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > I am running Debian Stretch and have just encountered a problem during > a routine apt-get dist-upgrade. > > Specifically, it failed with the following error messages. > > E: libc-bin: subprocess installed post-installation script returned > error exit status 1 > > Please advise. are you out of space on that device or out of inodes? have you tried to reinstall libc-bin? # apt-get install libc --reinstall songbird
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 20:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xch0u-7xH-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203889 |
On 01/03/2019 01:27 PM, songbird wrote: > apt-get install libc --reinstall root@AbNormal:/home/comp# apt-get install libc --reinstall Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done E: Unable to locate package libc so far as I know, I am not out of space. -- Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. Consultant www.molecular-modeling.net (614)312-7528 (c) Skype: smolnar1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 21:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xchjP-7Ev-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203893 |
On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 14:38:09 (-0500), Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > On 01/03/2019 01:27 PM, songbird wrote: > > apt-get install libc --reinstall > > root@AbNormal:/home/comp# apt-get install libc --reinstall > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > E: Unable to locate package libc libc is not a package. libc-bin is. > so far as I know, I am not out of space. Yes, but we don't. Type "df" without the quotes. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 21:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xchtx-7Xa-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203898 |
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 01:58:10PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > Yes, but we don't. Type "df" without the quotes. Hell, even WITH the quotes it'll still work!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 16:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcz74-1vc-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203893 |
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 02:38:09PM -0500, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: >On 01/03/2019 01:27 PM, songbird wrote: >>apt-get install libc --reinstall > >root@AbNormal:/home/comp# apt-get install libc --reinstall >Reading package lists... Done >Building dependency tree >Reading state information... Done >E: Unable to locate package libc > >so far as I know, I am not out of space. You previously wrote: root@AbNormal:/home/comp# df -hl Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 23G 23G 0 100% / Note that there is 0 available space...
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web