Professional Web Applications Themes

disk space - Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration

Hello, When I was downloading a big file which was about 500M I got the error message saying that I did not have enough room on my drive and I should remove something from the disk or save the file in a different location. Then I used "df" and saw that in /usr partition I still had 36G free space. I did save the file in /usr partition. So what is the problem? Thanks, Yulin...

  1. #1

    Default disk space

    Hello,

    When I was downloading a big file which was about 500M I got the error
    message saying that I did not have enough room on my drive and I
    should remove something from the disk or save the file in a different
    location. Then I used "df" and saw that in /usr partition I still had
    36G free space. I did save the file in /usr partition. So what is the
    problem?

    Thanks,
    Yulin
    Yulin Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: disk space

    Yulin Chang <wustl.edu> wrote: 

    Probably you were downloading first in /tmp or something and then
    moving to /usr.

    Davide
    Davide Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: disk space

    Yulin Chang <wustl.edu> wrote: 

    Hi.
     

    The problem is that you didn't save it there, no matter what you think
    you did.

    You probably INTENDED to save it there, but downloaded it to /tmp
    first. Or the application you used did.

    Tell us which.

    Peter
    Peter Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: disk space

    Yulin Chang wrote:
     

    Too many partitions. Repartition the drive and use the default number:
    three. This will prevent the usual problem of having plenty of free space
    in the wrong partition.

    --
    Paul Lutus
    http://www.arachnoid.com

    Paul Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: disk space

    Yulin Chang wrote:
     

    ..... you, or the app you used, saved it off to a temporary
    location, such as /tmp
    ..
    --
    /// Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, skydiver, \\\
    \\\ and author: "Inside Linux", "C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" ///
    Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers
    write in BASIC after reaching puberty.

    mjt Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: disk space

    Paul Lutus <zzz> wrote: 
    >
    > Too many partitions. Repartition the drive and use the default number:[/ref]

    I've killfiled you in the NG, you know? You show up with a big K on the
    forehead!
     

    Too few partitions. Make sure /tmp is a symbolic link
    to a large partition on its own.

    I all probability this is the default silly scheme of some distro or
    other which makes /tmp a tmpfs using the unused part of swap and ram, or
    something. Probably RH lunatics (don't hit me).

    Peter
    Peter Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: disk space

    Yulin Chang <wustl.edu> wrote: 


    A) you should not download files to a system partition. downloading to
    /usr means you downloaded the file as root which is considerably
    dangerous. use your user account for usual stuff and the root account
    only for system management.

    B) did you use mozilla for downloading? (mozilla as root? *cough*)
    mozilla temporarily downloads to /tmp and copies the finished file to
    its destination afterwards.

    C) provide more info to get more useful help:
    distro
    partition scheme
    output of 'df'
    application you used etc, etc.


    hth, armin

    --

    life, the universe and everything
    http://www.dtch.org

    armin Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: disk space

    Paul Lutus <zzz> wrote: 

    why don't you just _not_ answer when you have no idea about the topic?


    --

    life, the universe and everything
    http://www.dtch.org

    armin Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: disk space

    armin walland wrote:
     
    >
    > why don't you just _not_ answer when you have no idea about the topic?[/ref]

    Why don't you admit you haven't a clue? How *else* would this scenario
    arise? The OP knows he has plenty of drive space, but he is getting a
    message about running out of drive space.
     [/ref]

    Which word didn't you understand, moron? The list of possibilities has *one*
    *item* -- too many partitions.

    It's your turn to shut up when you haven't a clue.

    --
    Paul Lutus
    http://www.arachnoid.com

    Paul Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: disk space

    Peter T. Breuer wrote:
     
    >>
    >> Too many partitions. Repartition the drive and use the default number:[/ref]
    >
    > I've killfiled you in the NG, you know? You show up with a big K on the
    > forehead![/ref]

    Go away, you sociopath.
     
    >
    > Too few partitions. Make sure /tmp is a symbolic link
    > to a large partition on its own.[/ref]

    Yeah, right, thus entirely undermining the reason for having partitions, a
    compex idea you have yet to grasp.

    A: "Let's have plenty of partitions, so there is increased system security
    because the partitions are isolated from each other!"

    Q: "What happens if one of the partitions fills up?"

    A: "Simple -- make a link between the partitions!"

    Q: "Doesn't that undermine the basic idea of separate partitions?"

    A: "You annoy me with your complicated ideas -- *PLONK*"

    And this is not the only time, or the omly person I have heard this
    remarkable suggestion from. It seems to come with the
    partition-fundamentalism territory that common sense has long since gone
    out the window.
     

    Translation: "Too many partitions."

    --
    Paul Lutus
    http://www.arachnoid.com

    Paul Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: disk space

    Yulin Chang wrote:
     

    Another one said the "Did you as root stuff" before. I had a Prog for
    download (can't remeber which) that wasn't able to say what goes
    wrong. When I downloaded to a location on which I had no permissions
    it said "No Space left". I think this could be a reason for your
    Problem.

    --
    MfG usw

    Werner Mahr

    GPG-Key-ID 9CCBC2B0
    Registered-Linux-User: 303822 (http://counter.li.org)
    ICQ-Nr. 317910541
    Werner Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: disk space

    >> Too few partitions. Make sure /tmp is a symbolic link to a large 
    >
    > Yeah, right, thus entirely undermining the reason for having partitions,
    > a compex idea you have yet to grasp.[/ref]

    "a large partition on its own."
    AKA make it a separate partition.
    or make one big tmp partition and point eg.
    /tmp /var/tmp /usr/tmp to it
     

    good answer. You do *not* want some of them to fill up.

    You do not partition just for the fun of partitioning, but to
    increase system stability. Partition where needed, don't overdo
    it either. Read the partitioning howto, and find the rationale
    behind separation a directory from the rest, consider the fact
    whether it applies to you, and then decide whether or not to place
    it at a separate partition. Each system is different. There is no
    one generally aplicable solution.
     

    what happens depends on which partition got filled. If eg. /usr
    got filled, you may be unable to add new software. Too bad, but
    no real problem. If /tmp fills up and you can no longer eg. edit
    files that is really bad.

    So you partitioned incorrectly.
    You must go back to the start, study your system again, and
    set it up better matching your usage.
    (make /tmp and /var BIG enough)

    Partitions that hardly ever change can be joined, so if you never
    add new software, leaving eg. /usr/local and /opt as a part of
    / is no problem.
     

    as a temporary solution that'll do.
    For a fill up of tmp it is not needed. Just remove files from /tmp.
    They are temporary anyway. :-)
     

    yes it does, so don't do it. Overthink your system properly,
    then this will probably not occur.

    Peter's suggestion is OK (linking eg. /tmp to /var/tmp). Making eg.
    /usr/local/share a part of a partition dedicated to tmp
    (eg /tmp/usr/local/share)is NOT. These are fundamentaly different
    solutions, although both are using a symbolic link.
     

    Hmm. That's hardly ever the reason to get kill-filed.
    Usually it is just being a plain .
     

    partitioning makes sense. It's a difficult task though, as it requires
    some knowledge about the system usage characteristics before hand. You'll
    probably have to redo it a few times before you get it right. Starting
    with one big single FS is not bad, you get to learn your usage
    characteristics. When setting up a next system or reinstalling the old
    one you can use du to see what ended up where, and partition properly
    according to the outcome of du.

    Linux is a stable OS, but only in the hands of a capable sys-admin.
    allowing / to fill up, is a de-stabilizing factor. Don't do it.
     
    >
    > Translation: "Too many partitions."[/ref]

    I reserve the word partition in this discussion to HDD partitions.
    I don't use tmpfs.

    There is one other thing related to partitioning I did not yet mention.
    If a filesystem gets corrupted by whatever reason, having separate
    partitions will allow you to restore the data from the other partitions.
    It is no substitute for back-ups, but it sure is convenient.

    Eric
    Eric Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: disk space

    Eric Moors wrote:

     
    >
    >
    > as a temporary solution that'll do.
    > For a fill up of tmp it is not needed. Just remove files from /tmp.
    > They are temporary anyway. :-)[/ref]

    The link trick has other problems. If the software in question uses
    relative addressing, such as "rm /usr/local/etc/../passwd", and you've
    got /usr/local/etc linked to /opt/etc", guess what file you just
    removed? And yes, some people do write their software this way instead
    of using "dirname" to get the directory name.

    And Paul Lutis is a bit of a pest tossing out absolutes with no
    acknowledgement of where these absolutes break down in practice. Not as
    rude as Peter Breuer, but sometimes as silly.
     

    This used to be the case. Since the advent of GNU tar and other more
    sophisticated tools that talk to the file system, not to the raw disk as
    "dump" and "restore" did, and since dump systems and dump tapes became
    able to handle much, much larger drives, and operating systems became
    able to install from a powerful set of tools on CD that allowed you to
    partition your systems at will, the reasons to keep certain partitions
    wienie have shrunk.

    You had to "dump" partitions, not directories, and you also kept them
    separate because dumping was expensive and took tape drives and time:
    you'd dump the ones that changed frequently nightly, and the ones that
    took a lot of tape swapping and/or were really stable you'd do weekly or
    monthly.

    "/" used to have to be tiny, in the olden days of BSD and other early
    UNIX variants and the hardware that supported them, because the
    installation media only knew how to install a fixed size file system as
    "/", usually a straight binary disk image streamed directly to the drive.

    Thank ghod for progress.....

    Nico Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: disk space

    > The link trick has other problems. If the software in question uses 

    no mortal user is allowed to rm the passwd file on my system,
    but indeed, using symbolic links can result in unexpected behaviour.
     
    >
    > This used to be the case. Since the advent of GNU tar and other more
    > sophisticated tools that talk to the file system, not to the raw disk as
    > "dump" and "restore" did, and since dump systems and dump tapes became
    > able to handle much, much larger drives, and operating systems became
    > able to install from a powerful set of tools on CD that allowed you to
    > partition your systems at will, the reasons to keep certain partitions
    > wienie have shrunk.[/ref]

    ?
    It's not the backups I mean that are the problem. There's going to be
    data on your HDD that is not yet backed-up. If I can retrieve it, I would
    prefer that over restoring from an older backup. That still holds, no
    matter how far the toolsets have improved over the years.
     

    Amen.

    Eric
    Eric Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: disk space

    Eric Moors wrote:
     

    Ahh. Live retrieval from corrupted partitions. You're assuming, not
    unreasonably, that this is commonly feasible. But what makes you assume
    that separating such data onto a separate partition will make it more or
    less retrievable? In many cases, such corruption is fairly random, and
    not more likely to occur in one partition rather than another. (I
    deliberately leave out the case of old versions of syslog writing
    constantly to "wtmp" and corrupting /var.)

    If it's randomly distributed, and you need to bring the system down,
    unmount the partition, and run recovery on it anyway, then partitioning
    it into small categories is like painting a checkerboard on your
    backside before getting shot with rocksalt. You can't predict where the
    damage will be, so you may as well go under general anesthesia to clean
    things up and get it to stop hurting.

    If one partition had all the traffic and disk wear and tar, and
    especially could be rebuilt trivially from scratch, such as a web cache
    or /var/log, then yeah, I absolutely agree to partition it off to
    contain the potential damage.

    Nico Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: disk space

    Eric Moors wrote:
     
    >>
    >> Yeah, right, thus entirely undermining the reason for having partitions,
    >> a compex idea you have yet to grasp.[/ref]
    >
    > "a large partition on its own."
    > AKA make it a separate partition.
    > or make one big tmp partition and point eg.
    > /tmp /var/tmp /usr/tmp to it

    >
    > good answer. You do *not* want some of them to fill up.
    >
    > You do not partition just for the fun of partitioning, but to
    > increase system stability.[/ref]

    So it is rumored, but creating symlinks between partitions totally destroys
    the original reasoning. And having more than three partitions on a
    single-drive, end-user system decreases reliability overall, for the
    reasons rationalized away below.
     

    Yes, I agree. How about three in most cases: boot, swap and filesystem root.

    < snip >
     
    >
    > what happens depends on which partition got filled.[/ref]

    No, what happens is one or more system or user processes fail. Period. This
    is why partitioning has to be evaluated with its drawbacks in sight as well
    as its supposed advantages.
     

    "No real problem." The remark of a true believer. The "problem" is solved by
    not having more than three partitions, rather than dismissing the problem
    out of hand, or rationalizing the consequences as necessary evils.
     

    And don't even think about questioning the basic premise of overpartitioning
    a typical single-drive end-user system in the first place. That verges on a
    discussion of religion.
     

    Better: do not put them on separate partitions.
     
    >
    > as a temporary solution that'll do.[/ref]

    This is unbelievable. The cyber equivalent of a Jehovah's Witness.
     
    >
    > yes it does, so don't do it. Overthink your system properly,
    > then this will probably not occur.[/ref]

    Nonsense. It is the business of partitions to fill in ways that cannot be
    foreseen. That is why modern file systems don't (by default) set quotas on
    directories, but share all free space with all directories. The
    partitioning scheme undoes this advantage, and sets us back a few decades
    in the evolution of file systems.
     

    Classic Jehovah's Witness strategy -- kep talking, don't listen to any
    counter-arguments, no matter how persuasive.

    It is NOT all right. It totally undermines the original reasoning, and if
    this remedy is even considered, the drive should not have been partitioned
    in the first place, because a partitioned drive with symlinks between
    partitions is LESS RELIABLE than a drive without either the partitions or
    the symlinks.
     

    And scanning and repariring the drive may also solve the corruption problem,
    without extra partitions. But putting links between partitions greatly
    decreases the chances for successful isolation of a partition failure.

    This is an issue that most people either (1) do not understand, or (2) have
    positions they do not care to reevaluate. Or both.

    --
    Paul Lutus
    http://www.arachnoid.com

    Paul Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: disk space

    On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:31:45 +0200, Paul Lutus wrote: 
    >
    > So it is rumored, but creating symlinks between partitions totally
    > destroys the original reasoning. And having more than three partitions
    > on a single-drive, end-user system decreases reliability overall, for
    > the reasons rationalized away below.[/ref]

    yeah sure. You keep repeating the same argument, that your free space
    is used far more efficiently. I cannot argue with that. But that is
    simply not all there is to it.
     
    >
    > Yes, I agree. How about three in most cases: boot, swap and filesystem
    > root.[/ref]

    I see absolutely no reason why to separate /boot nowadays.
    There is a good reason why you should separate eg. /var
    It is a very different kind of directory then /boot. It is written to
    daily. I doubt an ordinary user writes on a daily basis data to /boot.
    the same goes for /tmp. And that one also deals with ersaing data
    frequently. If yo'd expect a lot of small files, you can even choose
    to make a filesystem on it with different characteristics, matching the
    most frequent data size, to improve performance. I'd like to see you
    do that on a single filesystem.
     
    >>
    >> what happens depends on which partition got filled.[/ref]
    >
    > No, what happens is one or more system or user processes fail. Period.
    > This is why partitioning has to be evaluated with its drawbacks in sight
    > as well as its supposed advantages.[/ref]

    Indeed. that is what I have been trying to explain to you.
     
    >
    > "No real problem." The remark of a true believer. The "problem" is
    > solved by not having more than three partitions, rather than dismissing
    > the problem out of hand, or rationalizing the consequences as necessary
    > evils.[/ref]

    No that is just inviting more serious problems.
    You talk like a true non-believer Paul.
     
    >
    > And don't even think about questioning the basic premise of
    > overpartitioning a typical single-drive end-user system in the first
    > place. That verges on a discussion of religion.[/ref]

    I do question it. Each time I install a new system I consider what
    directories I want separated. Just not questioning it is just plain
    ignoring the reasons to do it.
     
    >
    > Better: do not put them on separate partitions.[/ref]

    you are making it a religious war.
    I have been trying to show you the rationale behind partitioning.
    If you just plan to ignore every advise you get, please do so.
    Freedom of choice: we are in a linux newsgroup and that is what
    Open Source is all about.

    I just wouldn't hire you as a sysadmin. (not that I am in a position to
    hire anyone :-) )
     
    >>
    >> as a temporary solution that'll do.[/ref]
    >
    > This is unbelievable. The cyber equivalent of a Jehovah's Witness.[/ref]

    No, just leave the system in an unworkable state, go on a holiday.
    It is called improvising.
     
    >>
    >> yes it does, so don't do it. Overthink your system properly, then this
    >> will probably not occur.[/ref]
    >
    > Nonsense. It is the business of partitions to fill in ways that cannot
    > be foreseen.[/ref]

    A now statistics is a religion as well.

    "Though areth a true atheist!"
     

    And thus spoke the Lord :
    " All default settings must be kept for I only know what your system
    should be like "
     
    >
    > Classic Jehovah's Witness strategy -- kep talking, don't listen to any
    > counter-arguments, no matter how persuasive.[/ref]

    It is *OK*
     

    What you want is to mount one filesystem (eg. a tmp partition) to be
    mounted on several mountpoints simultaneously. A symbolic link is the
    closest thing to this, without actually doing this.
     

    WHY? just because a partition migth fill up? That beats filling up the
    entire drive. And as you also appear to be against quotas, what prevents
    a virus/worm/trojan to fill up your /tmp, thus filling up your entire /
    filesystem?
     
    >
    > And scanning and repariring the drive may also solve the corruption
    > problem, without extra partitions. But putting links between partitions
    > greatly decreases the chances for successful isolation of a partition
    > failure.[/ref]

    sure it does, so don't do it.
    I do agree with you on this point.

    I don't consider the symlink procedure above as the same thing.
    If you don't like that, fine. Create a single partition for each
    of the tmp directories. I do *advice against* merging /tmp with /
     

    probably true. But it is you, not me, who believes partitioning a drive
    has religious reasons. I have tried to give you the reasons for
    partitioning a drive. You can either try to understand them, or not and
    toss them out as religious arguments. I am absolutely not compelled to
    convince you of my point of view.

    Do with your systems as you please, partition them or not: Freedom of
    Choice

    Eric
    Eric Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: disk space

    Eric Moors wrote:
     
    >>
    >> So it is rumored, but creating symlinks between partitions totally
    >> destroys the original reasoning. And having more than three partitions
    >> on a single-drive, end-user system decreases reliability overall, for
    >> the reasons rationalized away below.[/ref]
    >
    > yeah sure. You keep repeating the same argument, that your free space
    > is used far more efficiently.[/ref]

    Which is true and undisputable.

    I cannot argue with that. But that is 

    A claim you never try to back up. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence
    you had ample opportunity to present, that *is* all there is to it.

    Dear reader -- as you read on, notice how this poster hints at reasons to
    come, then never provides them.
     
    >>
    >> Yes, I agree. How about three in most cases: boot, swap and filesystem
    >> root.[/ref]
    >
    > I see absolutely no reason why to separate /boot nowadays.
    > There is a good reason why you should separate eg. /var[/ref]

    State the reason.
     

    That's the reason? That's not a good enough reason to allow either it or the
    remainder of the directories to run out of space. In fact, it is a
    hand-wave.
     

    These are not good enough reasons to segregate directories. The drawbacks
    are crystal clear, and the advantage seems to be "because they're
    different." That is a statement, not a reason to take an action.
     

    The same what?
     

    No one does that in the context under discussion. They just create
    partitions. So this is entirely bogus as a justification for partitioning a
    single-drive, end-user system.
     
    >>
    >> No, what happens is one or more system or user processes fail. Period.
    >> This is why partitioning has to be evaluated with its drawbacks in sight
    >> as well as its supposed advantages.[/ref]
    >
    > Indeed. that is what I have been trying to explain to you.[/ref]

    You have done no such thing. "They are different" is not a rational basis
    for partitioning. You have not offered a single rationale for partitioning
    that stands up to scrutiny.
     
    >>
    >> "No real problem." The remark of a true believer. The "problem" is
    >> solved by not having more than three partitions, rather than dismissing
    >> the problem out of hand, or rationalizing the consequences as necessary
    >> evils.[/ref]
    >
    > No that is just inviting more serious problems.[/ref]

    Again, post the problems. No more bumperstickers, no more hand-waving.
     

    Get to the reasons, and stop waffling.

    < snip >
     
    >
    > I do question it. Each time I install a new system I consider what
    > directories I want separated. Just not questioning it is just plain
    > ignoring the reasons to do it.[/ref]

    Okay, I get it, this is a religious system, one in which reasons are not
    expected or offered, and anyone who questions the dogma is being rude.

    You said "reasons" before, and you have said "reasons" after, but in the
    middle, no reasons occurred to you.
     
    >>
    >> Better: do not put them on separate partitions.[/ref]
    >
    > you are making it a religious war.[/ref]

    No, I am doing exactly the opposite. We get posts almost daily here fropm
    people whose partitioned system begion to fail, and they ask what the hell
    is going on. Frequently the excessive partitions are *the* *problem* with
    their systems. I then say "minimize the partitions" as I did here, then
    someone else says, "But partitioning is *good* *thing* (tm)" but, just
    like now, never manages to offer a reason that holds water for a
    single-drive, end-user system.
     

    Now you are speaking in the past tense, before it was future tense, and
    there was nothing in the middle. You have been trying, but you forgot to
    post any reasons, any justifications.
     

    It's "advice" and you haven't offered any advice that made sense. You are so
    sure of your religious convictions that you failed to offer a shadow of a
    rationale.
     

    Ah, yes, that is what all religious people say -- you should be able to
    adopt whatever superstition you want. So this is what you meant when you
    claimed to have "reasons".
     

    And I have been very successful in this business for three decades, because
    I know how to cut through bull. I have fired more people that most
    people have ever had as employees.
     

    Great argument: "Freedom of Choice". I should have expected as much from a
    religious zealot.

    --
    Paul Lutus
    http://www.arachnoid.com

    Paul Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: disk space

    <SNIP>
     

    From the post you are replying to:
    Message-ID: <land>

    There is a good reason why you should separate eg. /var
    It is a very different kind of directory then /boot. It is written to
    daily. I doubt an ordinary user writes on a daily basis data to /boot.
    the same goes for /tmp. And that one also deals with ersaing data
    frequently. If yo'd expect a lot of small files, you can even choose
    to make a filesystem on it with different characteristics, matching the
    most frequent data size, to improve performance. I'd like to see you
    do that on a single filesy

    And from another point in that same posting:

    just because a partition migth fill up? That beats filling up the
    entire drive. And as you also appear to be against quotas, what prevents
    a virus/worm/trojan to fill up your /tmp, thus filling up your entire /
    filesystem?

    And from the post before that:
    Message-ID: <land>

    There is one other thing related to partitioning I did not yet mention.
    If a filesystem gets corrupted by whatever reason, having separate
    partitions will allow you to restore the data from the other partitions.
    It is no substitute for back-ups, but it sure is convenient.
     

    I was hoping to get a sensible discussion with you here.
    Yet this appears to be the way discussions with you have to end.

    As far as I am concerned, this thread ends here.

    Eric
    Eric Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: disk space

    Eric Moors wrote:
     
    >
    > From the post you are replying to:
    > Message-ID: <land>
    >
    > There is a good reason why you should separate eg. /var
    > It is a very different kind of directory then /boot. It is written to
    > daily. I doubt an ordinary user writes on a daily basis data to /boot.
    > the same goes for /tmp. And that one also deals with ersaing data
    > frequently. If yo'd expect a lot of small files, you can even choose
    > to make a filesystem on it with different characteristics, matching the
    > most frequent data size, to improve performance. I'd like to see you
    > do that on a single filesy[/ref]

    And this is entirely bogus, from top to bottom. It is not true (because no
    one actually creates different kinds of filesystems in single-drive,
    end-user systems, OUR TOPIC), it is therefore not a reason to partition.

    And I have already fully addressed this issue, in a reply which you snipped.
    In Usenet parlance, snipping replies and reposting the original arguments
    as though they had not already been refuted, is called "lying".
     

    Also totally bogus, since the advocates recommend placing symlinks between
    partitions when the real problem begins (partitions filling up). The same
    people who advicate partitioning because it isolates the partititons, go on
    to advocate placing symlinks between partitions. This is beyond idiotic.
     

    Quite false. If a filesystem gets corrupted while the symlinks this poster
    advocates are in place, the above is entirely bogus. If the symlinks are
    not in place, the problems created by a partitioniung scheme greatly
    outweigh the advantages for a single-drive, end-user system. How do we know
    this? The evidence. What evidence? This thread, which began with a complain
    about partitioning:
     [/ref]

    The problem? The only possible way this could happen is if a /tmp partition
    exists separate from the remainder of the filesystem, and has filled up.

    Solution? REMOVE THE BOGUS PARTITIONS.
     
    >
    > I was hoping to get a sensible discussion with you here.[/ref]

    You got it. You didn't read it. Your problem is you cannot identify evidence
    when you scan it with your eyes.
     

    With irrefutable evidence? No, not always. But in this case, in a thread
    that begins with a complaint about partitioning by a mystified newbie, what
    other outcome is possible?

    The newbie took some perfectly awful advice, and his system has FAILED AS A
    RESULT. This is an EVERYDAY OCCURRENCE HERE, and it shows the flaws in
    partitioning for partitioning's sake.

    There are reasons to partititon beyond the default three partitions. But
    those reasons DO NOT APPLY to a single-drive, end-user system.
     

    1. So said the Jehovah's Witnesses as they turned away from my door,
    disappointed in not being able to gang-save me.

    2. As far as I am concerned, it's too bad you cannot absorb the meaning of
    printed information.

    --
    Paul Lutus
    http://www.arachnoid.com

    Paul Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. There is not enough disk space...
    By chieffan in forum Macromedia Contribute General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 2nd, 12:58 PM
  2. remote disk space ...
    By O.Gir in forum PHP Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 28th, 03:25 PM
  3. disk space used in AIX 5.1L
    By Hari Om in forum AIX
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 29th, 02:57 PM
  4. more disk space
    By daniel in forum Windows Setup, Administration & Security
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 14th, 11:53 AM
  5. ?Disk Space?
    By Chris in forum Windows XP/2000/ME
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 1st, 04:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139