Professional Web Applications Themes

multiple partition? - Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration

Dear all, I have just got a new laptop with 80 GBytes HD. I wonder whether anyone has any arguments or reasons whether I should use just a single partition or several? If several what would you suggest? Sincerely, Patrick...

  1. #1

    Default multiple partition?


    Dear all,

    I have just got a new laptop with 80 GBytes HD. I wonder whether anyone
    has any arguments or reasons whether I should use just a single partition
    or several? If several what would you suggest?
    Sincerely,
    Patrick
    Patrick Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    In comp.os.linux.misc Patrick Guio <uio.no> wrote: 

    Depends whether you expect the device to fail or not. Think about what
    you would like to happen when it does, in one of the many ways that it
    is likely to fail.

    (hint: a broken 80GB file system is not fun to mend, assuming you can,
    and by the sound of it, you can't).

    Personally, I would not make any partition containing any data over 4GB in
    size, and I tend to go for 2GB.

    Peter
    P.T. Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    Hello

    Patrick Guio (<uio.no>) wrote:
     

    I wouldn't recommend using only one partition. Using several partitions
    has some advantages:

    Using partitions for /usr, /opt, /boot or /usr/local allows you to mount
    these partitions read-only. This lowers the probability that the file
    system gets damaged or you accidentially delete something important.

    If you have only one partition, and the file system gets damaged, or
    some part of the drive fails, maybe your complete system is gone. If
    you have several partitions, you have a better chance that you can
    still access the other partitions.

    However, using several partitions means that you have to think about how
    much space your system will need carefully, because repartitioning or
    changing the partition sizes later is annoying and potentially
    dangerous.

    best regards
    Andreas Janssen

    --
    Andreas Janssen
    com
    PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC801674
    Registered Linux User #267976
    Andreas Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Andreas Janssen wrote:


    Hi Andreas,

    Does this sounds ok? I am installing RH 9.0 but I am using fvwm and will
    not use KDE or Gnome. Not either emacs, I prefer vi...

    /boot 100 MB
    /usr/local 5000 MB
    /usr 5000 MB
    /opt 5000 MB
    /var 500 MB
    /tmp 500 MB
    / 1000 MB
    swap 1000 MB
    /home 61900 MB (what is again)

    Sincerely

    Patrick
     
    >
    > I wouldn't recommend using only one partition. Using several partitions
    > has some advantages:
    >
    > Using partitions for /usr, /opt, /boot or /usr/local allows you to mount
    > these partitions read-only. This lowers the probability that the file
    > system gets damaged or you accidentially delete something important.
    >
    > If you have only one partition, and the file system gets damaged, or
    > some part of the drive fails, maybe your complete system is gone. If
    > you have several partitions, you have a better chance that you can
    > still access the other partitions.
    >
    > However, using several partitions means that you have to think about how
    > much space your system will need carefully, because repartitioning or
    > changing the partition sizes later is annoying and potentially
    > dangerous.
    >
    > best regards
    > Andreas Janssen
    >[/ref]
    Patrick Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:39:29 +0100, Patrick Guio wrote:
     

    Several considerations. The primary one is that you want to minimize the
    destruction that would result from a bad thing happening. If you have one
    big partition, then if something very bad happens, you have nothing left.
    If you have several, then most very bad things will only affect one
    partition.

    That's why swap is best kept on a separate partition, rather than in a
    swap file. Swap is written to often, and with a bad situation, such as a
    memory leak, it may be spewed all over. But with swap on its own isolated
    partition, all it would do would be to hang the machine, not trash all
    your data.

    I prefer to keep /var, /tmp and /etc on separate partitions, again
    because /tmp gets a lot of writes, and /etc and /var have all the setup
    particulars that I do not want to lose. /usr and /usr/local are also
    separate partitions, as is /home. In terms of writing things, /home gets
    the most, and has most of the data, so you want to isolate that from the
    system files. I have a number of other partitions, simply because disks
    are so big these days that otherwise even these would be too damn big

    Another consideration is less serious, but still valid. You have to
    periodically check each filesystem. ext3 is nice about doing only one
    partition at any one boot, but if that partition is a zillion gig in size
    you'd have to wait a long time.

    The only downside is that you do have to take care to choose partition
    sizes to be large enough, but not excessive. This is not such a big deal,
    either. Go a bit bigger than you think you'll need for the system
    partitions, and you'll still have lots left over. If you ever do run out,
    then you can symlink one of the subdirectories of the full partition over
    to another.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front of
    _`\(,_ | enough typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of them
    (_)/ (_) | would reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare. The
    internet has proven this not to be the case.

    David Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    Hello

    Patrick Guio (<uio.no>) wrote:
     
    >>
    >> I wouldn't recommend using only one partition. Using several
    >> partitions has some advantages:
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >> However, using several partitions means that you have to think about
    >> how much space your system will need carefully, because
    >> repartitioning or changing the partition sizes later is annoying and
    >> potentially dangerous.[/ref]
    >
    > Does this sounds ok? I am installing RH 9.0 but I am using fvwm and
    > will not use KDE or Gnome. Not either emacs, I prefer vi...
    >
    > /boot 100 MB
    > /usr/local 5000 MB
    > /usr 5000 MB
    > /opt 5000 MB
    > /var 500 MB
    > /tmp 500 MB
    > / 1000 MB
    > swap 1000 MB
    > /home 61900 MB (what is again)[/ref]

    That depends on what you want to install. My partitions look like this:

    /boot 25 MB
    / 100 MB
    /var 1000 MB
    /tmp 2000 MB
    /opt 1000 MB
    /usr 2000 MB
    /usr/local 3000 MB
    /home 8000 MB
    [other partitions for music/windows]

    100 MB for your boot partition is probably more that you will need.
    Normally only kernel images and some boot loader files go there.

    If you put anything else on other partitions, there is no need to make /
    that big. If use Debian Woody with a lot of software installed, but
    most of that is in /usr, so there are about 35 MB on /. 100 or 150 MB
    should be enough for most systems. Maybe you need to use more if you
    are going to install a lot of kernels at the same time, because in that
    case you need enough space for the modules.

    /var on my system is 1 GB because weekley backups go to /var/tmp,
    otherwise 500 MB would probably be sufficient for me. This of course
    changes if you want to run some kind of server (mail, news,...) or a
    database that stores its files in /var.

    I made /tmp bigger because when writing CDs, /tmp is used to store
    images. If you want to do the same, make it at least big enough to
    store one image plus some extra space. On the other hand, you can of
    course also use your home directory for that.

    Your /opt probably is bigger that you need it. I think Red Hat does not
    use it for KDE or other packages, like SuSE does or did?). So you
    probably only need it if you want to install software there manually,
    like e.g. some newer version of Open Office or Star Office. I use /opt
    to store a telephone book software (about 700 MB), otherwise I wouldn't
    need it at all. And you can of course also not use a partition for /opt
    at all and instead create /usr/local/opt and symlink /opt there.

    I use KDE 3, and also have Openoffice and a lot of other software
    installed in /usr, yet it is only about 1.3 GB alltogether, so maybe
    you won't need 5 GB if you want to use fvwm and vim. The same is
    probably true for /usr/local. I have some games with large data files
    installed there (Quake 3, Unreal Tournament), otherwise I wouldn't have
    put it onto a seperate partition, because the only other software
    installed in /usr/local is licq and

    best regards
    Andreas Janssen

    --
    Andreas Janssen
    com
    PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC801674
    Registered Linux User #267976
    Andreas Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    "David L. Johnson" wrote: 

    Question: how do you keep /etc on a seperate partition? A *lot* of
    stuff needed at boot time is kept there. /etc/fstab for instance. How
    does it know where to find /etc/fstab before /etc gets mounted? What
    about /etc/inittab? And all the init scripts in /etc/init.d and
    /etc/rc*.d which do the mounting of filesystems?
    John-Paul Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
    On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:52:11 -0500, David L. Johnson staggered into the
    Black Sun and said: [/ref]
    [snip] 

    /var and /tmp I can see, but there's a rather important file called
    /etc/inittab that /sbin/init must be able to read when only / is
    mounted, before anything else gets mounted. Of course, you could keep
    your real /etc/inittab on / and have everything else in /etc , but when
    you mount /etc, your real /etc/inittab file becomes inaccessible.
    Using --bind, --rbind, and --move in the right way may avoid this, but
    it seems like a lot of hassle for very limited gain. A mangled inittab
    will make your system unbootable normally, you'll have to use
    "init=/bin/sh" and hope you can fix it. /etc only contains ~7M of data
    on my Gentoo systems, so I just let it reside on / .
     

    Yeah, you typically want /usr separate from /home . I used to have a
    separate /usr/local partition, but since I moved to Gentoo, I've found
    that almost everything I need can be built and managed by the portage
    system, so there's only 19M of stuff in /usr/local now and I just have a
    /usr .
     

    That too. I have a couple of 40G partitions mounted at /extra and
    /extra2 that are used for data dumps (mp3s, movies, etc.)
     

    Journalling filesystems like ext3 and ReiserFS don't take long to fsck
    at all in a case of "oops, the power went out". If something more
    serious happens (kernel bug, flaky hard disk) then it may take human
    involvement (worse than a long fsck time by the annoyance factor) to fix
    things anyway.
     

    ....and put any extra space in /home , since that's probably where you'll
    end up storing your users' data if this is a "normal" workstation.
    YMMV though.

    --
    Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
    Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / mail: TRAP + SPAN don't belong
    http://www.brainbench.com / Hire me!
    -----------------------------/ http://crow202.dyndns.org/~mhgraham/resume
    Dances Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:50:24 GMT, P.T. Breuer <it.uc3m.es> wrote:
     
    >
    > Depends whether you expect the device to fail or not. Think about what
    > you would like to happen when it does, in one of the many ways that it
    > is likely to fail.
    >
    > (hint: a broken 80GB file system is not fun to mend, assuming you can,
    > and by the sound of it, you can't).
    >
    > Personally, I would not make any partition containing any data over 4GB in
    > size, and I tend to go for 2GB.[/ref]

    Interesting concept, but isn't managing 20-40 mount points
    a huge hassle?

    Personally I hate running out of space. I make the system
    partitions about twice the recommended sizes and put all
    of the remaining space into one partition. Then maintain
    backups of data. I've never had a linux filesystem severely
    fry itself unless it was the whole drive up and dying.
    Joe Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    In comp.os.linux.setup Joe Beanfish <duh> wrote: 

    I like running out of space! It means it's time to tidy up. Oh goody!
    Yumm ... mass rm of useless things.

    Peter
    P.T. Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:39:29 +0100, Patrick Guio wrote:
     

    You want separate /, /home and swap partitions plus an extra partition
    that's reserved for use as / when you upgrade your OS. You also might want
    a separate /usr/local. If I were you I'd do the following

    / 8G
    /nextos 8G
    swap 2X your DRAM size
    /home remainder of the disk.

    After you have done you install move /usr/local to /home/usr/local and put
    a link under /usr to /home/usr/local.

    If you do it this way your life will be much easier when it's time to do
    an upgrade. When you upgrade you can do a clean install to the reserved
    partition (always easier and more reliable than upgrading and existing
    installation). If you have problems or aren't happy with the new release
    you can switch back to the working version. When you do the next upgrade
    you can use the original / partition, switching back and forth every time
    you do an upgrade. If you put everything on a single partition you won't
    be able to do this because you can't do a reformat without destroying
    valuable data.

    General Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: multiple partition?


    "P.T. Breuer" <it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
    news:it.uc3m.es... [/ref]
    partition 
    >
    > Depends whether you expect the device to fail or not. Think about what
    > you would like to happen when it does, in one of the many ways that it
    > is likely to fail.
    >
    > (hint: a broken 80GB file system is not fun to mend, assuming you can,
    > and by the sound of it, you can't).
    >
    > Personally, I would not make any partition containing any data over 4GB in
    > size, and I tend to go for 2GB.
    >
    > Peter[/ref]

    Madness !

    40 partitions on a hard drive.

    Put this guy in your kill files.


    Leon. Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: multiple partition?


    "Andreas Janssen" <com> wrote in message
    news:btef80$mcg$05$t-online.com... [/ref]


    I recommend using one partition - backups should go to a seperate drive
    that powers down. No sense using the same drive when the common failure is
    total loss of data on that drive. No sense backing up to a drive of the same
    age, eg if the drivers last three years, then no sense backing up to a drive
    that is three years old.




    One benefit of using one partition is that you dont have to adjust
    partition sizes just because you guessed/foretold the requirements of your
    partition sizes wrong.

    And it delays the time there is any sort of data loss or crash because of a
    'full partition'. It is much harder to fill up a 80 gig partition than it is
    to fill up a 20 gig partition..

    If you use multiple partitions, and use 4 partitions, then maybe there is 10
    gig of free space on each partition. but then that means that it only takes
    10 gig of 'careless downloading' or out of control log files or database
    files being backed up to fill up a partition. If you use only one
    partition, the headroom is 40 gig.



     

    This is a trick that isnt normally done by distributions. You may corrupt
    your distribution by doing this trick, and I really dont suggest it. How can
    anyone help you if you make such changes ? how can you expect normal system
    admin tasks to occur if you make changes like this ? how do you make these s
    ystems read write again ? There is no distribution support for doing so. If
    this guy releases his own distribution that handles all this automatically,
    then he can then advocate the use of his distribution. Until then, no thats
    not feasable.
     


    Sure sure , if the front of my Mercedes is smashed, I can just chop off the
    back end and drive around in that ? No Mercedes might be a good car, but
    its expensive. The expense doesnt give you everything you want ! And so to
    the admin expense of using multiple partitions doesnt really give you many
    benefits .. the apparent benefits become quite small.



    Actually using one partition for the running system does allow the backup
    to work properly! The backup easily goes to another partition, or another
    harddrive or tape or dvd..

    How many times have backups failed to work because 'the data was moved to
    another partition, but that partition wasnt backed up'. Its actually quite
    difficult to work with multiple partitions for a number of reasons.

     


    Can you please release a clairevoyant distribution ? Or one that resizes
    partitions automatically ? Until then ... !


     


    Leon. Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    In comp.os.linux.misc Leon. <noemail.com> wrote:
     [/ref]
    > partition 
    > >
    > > Depends whether you expect the device to fail or not. Think about what
    > > you would like to happen when it does, in one of the many ways that it
    > > is likely to fail.
    > >
    > > (hint: a broken 80GB file system is not fun to mend, assuming you can,
    > > and by the sound of it, you can't).
    > >
    > > Personally, I would not make any partition containing any data over 4GB in
    > > size, and I tend to go for 2GB.[/ref][/ref]
     
     

    What's wrong with it?

    Do you have a way of backing up a 80GB partition?

    But I didn't say 40 partitions. I only partition space if I need it. I
    am quite happy not to use more of the disk than I need! If I need more
    space (and by definition, that could only come about by me finding a
    new application for that space), I'll use more of the disk.
     

    Peter
    P.T. Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    Patrick Guio wrote: 

    i don't think anyone has mentioned head travel ... not a concern these days
    or just less of a concern?

    maybe it ties into how you'd be filling (or *if* you'd be filling) that 80g
    disk. if for instance you only had 8g of OS and data, i don't think it
    would make sense to space it out over wide slices. why make the head fly
    over a lot of empty disk, when the partitions (from a content standpoint)
    aren't that large?

    i think i'd try to set the basic partitions (/, /boot, swap) at some basic
    level, add a /home big enough for current projects, and maybe throw all the
    rest into one or two big partitions (/extra0, /extra1). i'm not even sure
    i'd hastle a /tmp these days.

    /boot whatever
    swap whatever
    / 8g
    /home 8g
    /extra0 30g
    /extra1 30g

    if it was me, i'd only use the /extra partitions for a few things ... ISOs,
    big audio or video files.


    Socks Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:13:57 +1100,
    Leon. <noemail.com> wrote: 
     
    >
    > This is a trick that isnt normally done by distributions. You may corrupt
    > your distribution by doing this trick, and I really dont suggest it. How can[/ref]

    It will prevent corruption, by its very nature it can't cause it.
     

    Normal system admin tasks don't write to the above partitions. Anyone
    that would do such a thing has read man mount, and mount comes with all
    distros.
     

    It is quite feasable for an experienced sysadmin, the fact that is not
    automatic is a benefit. It prevents the system from being updated
    accidentally or intentionally, unless the admin is sure that is what
    THEY want.
     
    >
    >
    > Sure sure , if the front of my Mercedes is smashed, I can just chop off the
    > back end and drive around in that ? No Mercedes might be a good car, but
    > its expensive. The expense doesnt give you everything you want ! And so to
    > the admin expense of using multiple partitions doesnt really give you many
    > benefits .. the apparent benefits become quite small.[/ref]

    Huh?
     

    Which is no more difficult with multiple partitions.
     

    Well if you're going to rely on backing up to a seperate partition and
    not back it up, if the disk dies you're pretty much fsked no matter how
    many partitions you have.
     

    It merely requires a little planning.

    Michael C.
    --
    com http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/
    Registered Linux User #303915 http://counter.li.org/


    Michael Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: multiple partition?


    "Michael C." <com> wrote in message
    news:softshoppe.com... 
    > [/ref][/ref]
    mount 
    > >
    > > This is a trick that isnt normally done by distributions. You may[/ref][/ref]
    corrupt [/ref]
    How can [/ref]
    system [/ref]
    these s [/ref]
    so. If [/ref]
    automatically, [/ref]
    thats 
    >
    > It is quite feasable for an experienced sysadmin, the fact that is not
    > automatic is a benefit. It prevents the system from being updated
    > accidentally or intentionally, unless the admin is sure that is what
    > THEY want.

    > >
    > >
    > > Sure sure , if the front of my Mercedes is smashed, I can just chop off[/ref][/ref]
    the [/ref]
    but [/ref]
    to [/ref]
    many 
    >
    > Huh?
    > [/ref]
    backup [/ref]
    another 
    >
    > Which is no more difficult with multiple partitions.
    > [/ref]
    to [/ref]
    quite 

     
    >
    > It merely requires a little planning.
    >
    > Michael C.[/ref]

    As I have been contradicted by someone who uses my points as his defense, I
    wont bother any more.







    Leon. Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: multiple partition?


    "General Schvantzkoph" <com> wrote in message
    news:com... [/ref]
    partition 
    >
    > You want separate /, /home and swap partitions plus an extra partition
    > that's reserved for use as / when you upgrade your OS. You also might want
    > a separate /usr/local. If I were you I'd do the following
    >
    > / 8G
    > /nextos 8G
    > swap 2X your DRAM size
    > /home remainder of the disk.
    >
    > After you have done you install move /usr/local to /home/usr/local and put
    > a link under /usr to /home/usr/local.
    >
    > If you do it this way your life will be much easier when it's time to do
    > an upgrade. When you upgrade you can do a clean install to the reserved
    > partition (always easier and more reliable than upgrading and existing
    > installation). If you have problems or aren't happy with the new release
    > you can switch back to the working version.[/ref]

     

    Well a better scheme would be like this ...

    Far better to just allocate a reasonably large single partition for linux.
    eg 10 gigabytes, and then use a growing partition for 'data' . ie start it
    of at 10 gigabytes, and grow it as need be.

    If the data drive hasnt consumed the last 10 gigabytes, then you could use
    it as a test partition. If it is used up, then you need a new hard disk to
    test upgrades.


    and that really means that linux distribution is on one partition, and data
    is on another.

    The other guys have said 'but a database might get corrupted if a partition
    filled up'. well go ahead and allocate a partition to any database you
    consider valuable to go to that expensive over.

    Since this question is from a newbie, lets assume he doesnt have a valuable
    database to look after.






    Leon. Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: multiple partition?


    "Socks" <Invalid> wrote in message
    news:nKJKb.1593$news.adelphia.net... 
    >
    > i don't think anyone has mentioned head travel ... not a concern these[/ref]
    days 
    80g 
    the 
    ISOs, 


    No, to minimise head travel, use one big partition.

    If you create the /extra1 partition, then access to /extra1 requires the
    head travel out that far.

    If you put everything on one partition, you minise head travel to as far as
    the data extends.


    Of course you dont put swap at one end of the drive and / at the other end.
    that causes thrashing...

    yeah a 10 or 20 gig partition for linux distribution to be on is enough.
    All you people are still saying /home should have its own space.

    e2fs reserves X % (2% by default ? ) for writing by root only. Users
    processes cant write to that last bit. And what this means is that
    effectively root has that X% all to itself on / , and users are prevented
    from filling up the drive.

    Therefore having /home seperate is REDUNDANT and a WASTE OF SPACE.



    Leon. Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: multiple partition?

    Hello

    Leon. (<noemail.com>) wrote:
     [/ref]
    >
    > I recommend using one partition - backups should go to a seperate
    > drive that powers down. No sense using the same drive when the common
    > failure is total loss of data on that drive. No sense backing up to a
    > drive of the same age, eg if the drivers last three years, then no
    > sense backing up to a drive that is three years old.
    >
    > One benefit of using one partition is that you dont have to adjust
    > partition sizes just because you guessed/foretold the requirements of
    > your partition sizes wrong.[/ref]

    Right.
     

    Yes, it will take longer. But if it happens, you can have problems
    anywhere, because the whole system is affected and the even root file
    system will run full. If something fills up your home dir, services
    will no longer be able to write to their log files. If something fills
    up your system with log messages, files in /var/run, /var/lock or /tmp
    cannot be created anymore and services cannot be started or will behave
    very strange.

    And of course, if you use for example a /home partition, and it gets
    damaged, you can still use your backup without having to replace or
    reinstall the whole system. A seperate home partition is the minimum
    for most systems in my opinion. At least keep your personal files and
    the system files apart.
     
    >
    > This is a trick that isnt normally done by distributions. You may
    > corrupt your distribution by doing this trick, and I really dont
    > suggest it. How can anyone help you if you make such changes ? how can
    > you expect normal system admin tasks to occur if you make changes like
    > this ?[/ref]

    System admin tasks (like package management or configuration tools)
    should not write to /usr/local. On my distribution (Debian Woody), this
    is also true for /opt. /boot is only written to if I rerun lilo or
    upgrade the kernel, and in that cases I remount it rw manually because
    I don't want anything to write to it automatically wothout asking me
    first, even it is an admin tool. /usr is normally only written to by
    the package management system, and I can configure apt to automatically
    remount /usr rw when I install or remove packages.
     

    Some distribution tools can be configured to take care of this. Most of
    them don't write to /usr, /boot, /opt or /usr/local. And if they try to
    do it, I can still read the error message, remount the partition
    read-write and rerun the tool. Not that that would be necessary often.
    The only tool that frequently writes to /usr on my system is apt, and I
    configured it to take care of this problem automatically.
     

    Until then, try Debian: <http://www.debian.org/distrib>. Works fine for
    me. And I am sure you can also make it work on other distributions.
     
    >
    > Sure sure , if the front of my Mercedes is smashed, I can just chop
    > off the back end and drive around in that ? No Mercedes might be a
    > good car, but its expensive. The expense doesnt give you everything
    > you want ! And so to the admin expense of using multiple partitions
    > doesnt really give you many benefits .. the apparent benefits become
    > quite small.[/ref]

    If the tires of your car are slashed, you can replace them. If the radio
    stops working, you can replace it. You can even replace the complete
    engine. Because the car is built to make this possible. Or would you
    throw the whole car away and get a new one every time?
     

    You can still backup the whole disk. Or simply backup all partitions. Or
    backup the files instead of using partitions.

    I make weekly backups, and I really wouldn't want to backup the same 8
    GB of ogg vorbis files each time only because they are on the same
    partition as my home folder.

    best regards
    Andreas Janssen

    --
    Andreas Janssen
    com
    PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC801674
    Registered Linux User #267976
    Andreas Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Resize a ufs partition
    By Soheil Hassas Yeganeh in forum FreeBSD
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 16th, 01:50 PM
  2. can't partition with RH 9?
    By Dave in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 27th, 08:02 AM
  3. / HD partition going bad
    By /dev/null in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 23rd, 07:32 PM
  4. MOUNTING FAT partition
    By SAM in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 29th, 06:03 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 3rd, 03:07 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