Using partitions is not something I have done much of in the past. But with 12.10 to be released soon I was hoping for some advice. Is it worthwhile, in terms of performance, having partitions - something simple like root, swap and home (that is about as much as I can manage to set up) or should I just let tthe installation use the entire disk like usual? With thanks in advance.
-
-
There is no real benifit to having seperate partitions when preformance in reguarded unless you tailor the filesystem to what the partition is going to be used for... but this is most useful for high capacity server/databases and should not be needed on a home system.
If you are not very confident with messing around with partitions then just let the installer handle it, it will automatically create the ones needed (I know it will create a seperate swap partition, it might even create a /home partition, but I am not sure about this).
The main advantage to having a seprate /home partition is that you can reformat / without losing any of your data should you need to reinstall for any reason. Although you can also do this with out a seperate /home as well... so the choice is really up to what you feel is best.
Note that you can always install with the automatic partitions, see what it creates and then reinstall if you want to change it (or even modify the partitions after install). Linux is flexable enought to do what you want with it
-
I would encourage your setting up exactly the partition configuration you suggest. I've been running like that for several years and wouldn't do it any other way, for a simple reason: It protects data (and software installed in /home) from system update/modification/etc. disasters. This is such a good idea that I cannot fathom why it is not the default setup, but...my understanding is limited!
I run allow 15G for root, 6G for swap, and the rest for /home. You could surely run 10G for root, and 2-3G for swap if you're running lean.
Try this! You'll like it...Comment
-
re: james147 - agreed that performance is not the issue, but data user safety/persistence certainly IS. I've messed up my OS a number of times and had to reinstall, but have not lost my user account data precisely because I've kept it in a separate partition. THAT safety is the compelling reasons to do a multiple partition setup. The setup routine for the install allows a "manual" setup, and that's when you can repartition to create a separate /home partition. Simple, easy, safe, and reassuring in the long run.Comment
-
If you don't format the partition with /home on it (even if you just have one partition that contains / and /home) the installer will delete relevent system folders, /usr /bin /etc ... and leave /home intact... so it is possible to reinstall with a single partition without losing any data.Originally posted by tomcloyd View Post
That said, with both methods you can pick the wrong option and lose all your data... so it is always a good idea to take backups first.
Also, the default install may or may not create a /home partition... its been a while since I have tried it could anyone confirm this?Comment
-
The default installation only offers to create single new partition for the OS. There are many ways to get in trouble if you try to use the installation process to create more new partitions, as you can see on the many posts on this forum about the resulting problems. In my experience it is far better to begin by using a Parted Magic or Gparted Live CD or USB stick and do any needed partitioning in advance of Linux installation. Then you can use the installer strictly to install the OS, and avoid the pitfalls of fiddling with partitions.As far as data security, there is an alternative to mounting /home on a separate partition, which is superior (IMHO) because it avoids "cross-contamination" problems with the many hidden user configuration files, especially in dual boot systems where different versions of the same packages may exist. If you will simply keep the user data on a separate partition and symlink the top-level folders (DOCS, IMAGES, VIDEOS, MUSIC, etc.) in to /home/username, then the user can see and access the data, but the /home directory can live right there with the rest of the OS.Comment
-
The downside with this approch is that it requires more effort to set up (you have to make sure you create all the symlinks manually) and it dosn't protect all your data as some are stored in hidden folders (such as wine instaltions in ~/.wine or ~/.local/wineprefixes or kwallet passwords and other kde application data (not settings) in ~/.kde/share/apps as well as game progress data... and various other things) which the user might want to keep.Originally posted by dibl View Post
I find a better approch to avoiding config conflicts is to move the hidden files to a backup location prior to install so that they can be recovered if needed. ie
Code:mkdir ~/config-backups mv ~/.* ~/.config-backups cp /etc/skel/* ~ # Restores default configs like .bashrc
Last edited by james147; Oct 18, 2012, 07:58 AM.Comment
-
Agreeing primarily with dibl, I would break it down into several options:
1: Single Partition - Let the system have the whole drive: Easiest way to do it. Perfectly fine or even preferred if you make regular backups of your data. Not fine if you want the option of multiple installs on the same drive or are the type who likes to muck around a bit with your install to the point of breaking it.
2: Add a /home Partition: Very commonly done. Not difficult. Makes re-installing in the event you trash your install much easier since all your data and settings a safely tucked away in their own partition. Additionally, makes data backups a little simpler.
3: Add a /data Partition: Very similar to #2 except user settings are with the install and data is not. Moderately difficult to set up properly. Complicates backups slightly if you want to retain your users' settings along with data. Better option if you multi-boot several installs on the same computer. Symlinks are fine, but bind mounts are better and don't forget about hidden folders that you might want to backup, like .Thunderbird, .VirtualBox, .wine, etc.
4: Use btrfs: New file system allows a single partition install with user data in the same partition but segregated using subvolumes. Easy (in fact the separate home subvolume is set up for you automatically), but learning some new commands might advisable and there's not much in the way of GUI tools at this time.
Beyond these options are several, much more complicated ways. Unlikely that most users would need or want to try those ideas so I'll leave them off.Comment
-
I agree that there is some effort in the first setup, but it is only needed once, for the life of the hard drive(s). I assume you have mounted your DATA partition/drive as /mnt/DATA.Originally posted by james147 View Post
1. Alt-F2 "kdesudo dolphin" and enter your super-user password
2. Open /mnt/DATA and make some new folders: MUSIC, VIDEOS, IMAGES, DOCS, and whatever else is needed.
3. Right click each folder, choose "Properties" and set the user to "nobody", the group to "users", and the permissios to "Can view and modify".
4. Click "OK" and you are done.
5. Exit dolphin, and then open dolphin again as user. Browse to /mnt/DATA, split the dolphin window, and drag each folder under /mnt/DATA to your home folder. On the service menu, choose "Link here".
That is it -- you are done for as long as the OS or hard drive lasts (whichever is longer). Nothing that happens on the OS can affect your data.Comment
-
Do you think is because partman is just really bad, or there is simply no easy and foolproof way to handle partitioning and installation at the same time?Originally posted by dibl View Post
Personally, I use one big partition for everything. Nothing on any of my laptops is authoritative; instead, stuff syncs to my own home server or Amazon Web Services. It's very comforting knowing that I can, at any moment, intentionally nuke a machine and then be back up and running, with locally-synced email and data, in under an hour.Comment
-
Honestly, I don't think it's a tool issue, particularly. Looking at the posts from people whose installations go wrong in the partitioning phase, it seems that they got confused or missed a visual cue at some point, and didn't understand what was happening. Probably it is a very uncommon procedure for a lot of folks, as is installing an OS, and by combining two "foreign" tasks into a single series of technical decisions, it is more apt to go off the rails. By booting Parted Magic or Gparted Live, I think a person is forced to focus only on the question of how to lay out the drive(s), and leave the rest of the installation issues for a later process. Or so I theorize ...Comment
-
I fully agree with dible, treating partitioning as a separate task is key to a good install. It can be done from the live CD using the KDE partition manager.
And yes, having a separate /home is essential for easy recovery when a fully new install is required.Comment
-
In my experience, 99% of the trouble I've had with Ubiquity has been with the partition tool. In the past, formatting was where the installer would crash so I simply learned to pre-format.
The last couple of releases worked OK (I always pre-format these days) but yesterday trying to install to a BTRFS partition that already existed crashed Ubiquity at grub-install. I then decided to re-attempt the install using the "-b" option (no boot loader) and the partitioner simple refused to "see" the BTRFS drive in question. Odd thing was it could see the four other BTRFS drives and partition just fine - only the one I wanted to install to showed as an unformatted drive - even after rebooting. I suspect the grub-install crash modified the MBR to the point it was no longer recognizable by Ubiquity. I eventually gave up and copied an existing install to the btrfs drive and forced grub onto it - which I'm using now.
IMO: The installer needs a lot of work.Along with a more stable partition tool, I'd like to see an "Advanced" mode which allowed package selection (in groups or major package lists - i.e. libre-office, games, etc.) and maybe a network setup page for those of us using non-simple networking setups. PLUS and #1 -- the boot installer option needs to be way more obvious.Comment
-
First of all, many thanks for all the replies here - a wealth of information. You may not be surprised to know that due to a lack of clear knowledge and confidence I decided to go with the tried and tested 'let the disc do it' installation. Partitions have always intrigued me but for now they shall remain beyond my remit
. However, It will no doubt not be long before I ruin this installation and then perhaps after re-reading this thread I shall be braver. I have certainly learned a great deal from so many excellent replies. Thanks again.
Comment
Comment