FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Kernel

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-29-2009, 02:58 PM
Chris Lumens
 
Default - change our default partitioning scheme

Here's a patch series that ends up with creating a /home by default. The
algorithm is basically:

- VG < 50 GB: make /boot, swap, rest as /
- VG >= 50 GB: make /boot, swap, / with a 50 GB max, rest as /home

Let the arguing begin.

- Chris

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 10-29-2009, 07:46 PM
David Cantrell
 
Default - change our default partitioning scheme

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Chris Lumens wrote:


Here's a patch series that ends up with creating a /home by default. The
algorithm is basically:

- VG < 50 GB: make /boot, swap, rest as /
- VG >= 50 GB: make /boot, swap, / with a 50 GB max, rest as /home

Let the arguing begin.


I like the idea of creating a /home by default, but I'm not a fan of the 50GB
number. I understand it's slightly over the current Everything install, which
makes sense, but I think about my systems:

1) Over time, your /home directory will probably contain more data than / what
with music, movies, pictures, code, saved email with eBay outbid notices,
0-day warez, video game emulators, and other things. My home directory is
27GB and / is only taking up 5.5GB.

2) /home is also a good place for people to tar up /etc, /root, and other
things if they want to do a fresh install of Fedora. At least I always use it
for that when I do a fresh Fedora install.

3) WWSD[1] and WWFD[2] tell us that / should be minimal and most available
space should go to either /export/home or /usr/home (maybe it's just /home now
on FreeBSD).

I'm also thinking of what people would be expecting during an install. If I
have a 250GB disk and 50GB is allocated to / by default, I'm going to change
that. I still want a 10GB / and the rest for /home. What are other people's
thoughts on this?

I'm in favor of a /home by default, but I'd like to see the / value lowered
from 50GB.

Some other ideas...

1) For live installs, we know the size of what's going to /, so we could use
that as the basis for sizing /, then make /boot, swap, and /home.

2) x86 may have a smaller / requirement than x86_64, should that be
considered?

3) Let's say "f the FHS" and change /home to /users.

[1] What Would Solaris Do?
[2] What Would FreeBSD Do?

- --
David Cantrell <dcantrell@redhat.com>

Red Hat / Honolulu, HI

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrp/xAACgkQ5hsjjIy1VklV+QCg8qk+IRujQV+niOzbWd7ctqPE
laAAoLnVHJK+VMu9DjBwvlGfk7RgMxcq
=yK2L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 10-29-2009, 08:15 PM
Chris Lumens
 
Default - change our default partitioning scheme

> I like the idea of creating a /home by default, but I'm not a fan of the 50GB
> number. I understand it's slightly over the current Everything install, which
> makes sense, but I think about my systems:
>
> 1) Over time, your /home directory will probably contain more data than / what
> with music, movies, pictures, code, saved email with eBay outbid notices,
> 0-day warez, video game emulators, and other things. My home directory is
> 27GB and / is only taking up 5.5GB.
>
> 2) /home is also a good place for people to tar up /etc, /root, and other
> things if they want to do a fresh install of Fedora. At least I always use it
> for that when I do a fresh Fedora install.
>
> 3) WWSD[1] and WWFD[2] tell us that / should be minimal and most available
> space should go to either /export/home or /usr/home (maybe it's just /home now
> on FreeBSD).

Well, there were a couple of reasons why I wanted to go with these
numbers:

(1) Accomodate the crazy Everything install people now.

(2) Provide enough room to store packages when doing yum upgrade or
preupgrade.

(3) Make it big enough so we don't have to worry about bumping the size
up every release as the distribution gets bigger.

(4) We're not recommending a separate /opt, /usr/local, /var, or /tmp
right now so we need enough space for all the things people could do
with those filesystems.

> I'm also thinking of what people would be expecting during an install. If I
> have a 250GB disk and 50GB is allocated to / by default, I'm going to change
> that. I still want a 10GB / and the rest for /home. What are other people's
> thoughts on this?
>
> I'm in favor of a /home by default, but I'd like to see the / value lowered
> from 50GB.

The way I see it, things are moving in two different directions right
now: disks are getting smaller (netbooks, etc.) and disks are getting
larger (everyone else). For the smaller case, we don't need to worry
about this because we're throwing out the /home case there. For larger,
disks are really giant these days. If we're suggesting 50 GB for / and
that leaves 500 GB for /home, I don't think most people are going to
care about what space they might be losing there.

I really don't think it's g oing to be an issue, but keep in mind that
these are just recommendations and the user always has the option to
change things in the partitioning UI. We don't need to be perfect -
just good enough.

Having said that, I'm not completely tied to this 50 GB number. I did
just kind of pull it out of thin air.

> 1) For live installs, we know the size of what's going to /, so we could use
> that as the basis for sizing /, then make /boot, swap, and /home.

True, we could be smarter here. That would have to involve setting this
default partition in the backend and might be a little difficult.
However, it could be a decent refinement.

> 2) x86 may have a smaller / requirement than x86_64, should that be
> considered?

Eh, I don't know that it's too important. But it would be easy enough
to take into account with the Platform module.

> 3) Let's say "f the FHS" and change /home to /users.

Only if we can call it /Users.

- Chris

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 10-30-2009, 12:04 AM
Kyle McDonald
 
Default - change our default partitioning scheme

I'm nobody, but here's my 2 cents.

Don't mount it as /home, or /export/home, but something more generic,
and make 'home' (or 'Users' or whatever) a directory inside that
mountpoint so the 1 large pool of space can be shared got multiple purposes.


I never understood Sun's use of /export/home, but I found it useful to
mount the remaining space as just /export, and then I made directories
inside it for home, groups, projects, tools, etc. The one generic name
doesn't need to be /export but that worked well for me since all the
things I put in there were exported via NFS. (and automounted to
/import/... - even locally) Your milage may vary though.


Of course it seems strange to have hour home dir hidden in /export/home
on a single user machine, but then by default Sun did use the
automounter loopback mount that to /home so you never knew.


I'm not suggesting using the mouintpoints I do, I'm only suggesting that
you don't lock down what the space is used for by mounting it as
something labeled 'home' or 'users' - Make it a conatiner and put 'home'
in there.


-Kyle




Chris Lumens wrote:

I like the idea of creating a /home by default, but I'm not a fan of the 50GB
number. I understand it's slightly over the current Everything install, which
makes sense, but I think about my systems:

1) Over time, your /home directory will probably contain more data than / what
with music, movies, pictures, code, saved email with eBay outbid notices,
0-day warez, video game emulators, and other things. My home directory is
27GB and / is only taking up 5.5GB.

2) /home is also a good place for people to tar up /etc, /root, and other
things if they want to do a fresh install of Fedora. At least I always use it
for that when I do a fresh Fedora install.

3) WWSD[1] and WWFD[2] tell us that / should be minimal and most available
space should go to either /export/home or /usr/home (maybe it's just /home now
on FreeBSD).



Well, there were a couple of reasons why I wanted to go with these
numbers:

(1) Accomodate the crazy Everything install people now.

(2) Provide enough room to store packages when doing yum upgrade or
preupgrade.

(3) Make it big enough so we don't have to worry about bumping the size
up every release as the distribution gets bigger.

(4) We're not recommending a separate /opt, /usr/local, /var, or /tmp
right now so we need enough space for all the things people could do
with those filesystems.



I'm also thinking of what people would be expecting during an install. If I
have a 250GB disk and 50GB is allocated to / by default, I'm going to change
that. I still want a 10GB / and the rest for /home. What are other people's
thoughts on this?

I'm in favor of a /home by default, but I'd like to see the / value lowered
from 50GB.



The way I see it, things are moving in two different directions right
now: disks are getting smaller (netbooks, etc.) and disks are getting
larger (everyone else). For the smaller case, we don't need to worry
about this because we're throwing out the /home case there. For larger,
disks are really giant these days. If we're suggesting 50 GB for / and
that leaves 500 GB for /home, I don't think most people are going to
care about what space they might be losing there.

I really don't think it's g oing to be an issue, but keep in mind that
these are just recommendations and the user always has the option to
change things in the partitioning UI. We don't need to be perfect -
just good enough.

Having said that, I'm not completely tied to this 50 GB number. I did
just kind of pull it out of thin air.



1) For live installs, we know the size of what's going to /, so we could use
that as the basis for sizing /, then make /boot, swap, and /home.



True, we could be smarter here. That would have to involve setting this
default partition in the backend and might be a little difficult.
However, it could be a decent refinement.



2) x86 may have a smaller / requirement than x86_64, should that be
considered?



Eh, I don't know that it's too important. But it would be easy enough
to take into account with the Platform module.



3) Let's say "f the FHS" and change /home to /users.



Only if we can call it /Users.

- Chris

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list



_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 10-30-2009, 12:19 AM
David Cantrell
 
Default - change our default partitioning scheme

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Chris Lumens wrote:


I like the idea of creating a /home by default, but I'm not a fan of the 50GB
number. I understand it's slightly over the current Everything install, which
makes sense, but I think about my systems:

1) Over time, your /home directory will probably contain more data than / what
with music, movies, pictures, code, saved email with eBay outbid notices,
0-day warez, video game emulators, and other things. My home directory is
27GB and / is only taking up 5.5GB.

2) /home is also a good place for people to tar up /etc, /root, and other
things if they want to do a fresh install of Fedora. At least I always use it
for that when I do a fresh Fedora install.

3) WWSD[1] and WWFD[2] tell us that / should be minimal and most available
space should go to either /export/home or /usr/home (maybe it's just /home now
on FreeBSD).


Well, there were a couple of reasons why I wanted to go with these
numbers:

(1) Accomodate the crazy Everything install people now.


That is a good point. Better to handle everything in Fedora rather than only
a subset (even though the subset is what the majority of users will ever have
installed).


(2) Provide enough room to store packages when doing yum upgrade or
preupgrade.


Also a good point.


(3) Make it big enough so we don't have to worry about bumping the size
up every release as the distribution gets bigger.


We can say that now, but we'll still have to keep an eye on this number just
like we have to keep an eye on the size for /boot.


(4) We're not recommending a separate /opt, /usr/local, /var, or /tmp
right now so we need enough space for all the things people could do
with those filesystems.


True.


I'm also thinking of what people would be expecting during an install. If I
have a 250GB disk and 50GB is allocated to / by default, I'm going to change
that. I still want a 10GB / and the rest for /home. What are other people's
thoughts on this?

I'm in favor of a /home by default, but I'd like to see the / value lowered
from 50GB.


The way I see it, things are moving in two different directions right
now: disks are getting smaller (netbooks, etc.) and disks are getting
larger (everyone else). For the smaller case, we don't need to worry
about this because we're throwing out the /home case there. For larger,
disks are really giant these days. If we're suggesting 50 GB for / and
that leaves 500 GB for /home, I don't think most people are going to
care about what space they might be losing there.

I really don't think it's g oing to be an issue, but keep in mind that
these are just recommendations and the user always has the option to
change things in the partitioning UI. We don't need to be perfect -
just good enough.

Having said that, I'm not completely tied to this 50 GB number. I did
just kind of pull it out of thin air.


For the standard hard disk size we see now, 50GB is nothing. Netbooks present
a different use case. Are those users interested in a separate /home by
default? Should we care?

I'll agree that 50GB is fine for the normal sized hard disk use case, but
maybe we should break this in to a few different cases:

- The regular hard disk, which for the sake of argument is 250GB
or larger by default.
- The netbook user or someone with 8GB to 64GB of storage available.
- The live CD user, where we already know what will go to / before
we get to partitioning setup.

At least the first and last ones there seem like ones worth tackling. The
netbook use case may be harder to define. Netbooks now have hard disks as
well as SSD. We have a netbook here with a 250GB hard disk in it and my
Thinkpad from RH has a 64GB SSD in it. Go figure.


1) For live installs, we know the size of what's going to /, so we could use
that as the basis for sizing /, then make /boot, swap, and /home.


True, we could be smarter here. That would have to involve setting this
default partition in the backend and might be a little difficult.
However, it could be a decent refinement.


Given how hard the live install concept is sold, I think it would be worth our
time to do something for this use case.


2) x86 may have a smaller / requirement than x86_64, should that be
considered?


Eh, I don't know that it's too important. But it would be easy enough
to take into account with the Platform module.


On second thought, this is probably a waste of time. I don't know what the
size differences are between an everything x86 and everything x86_64 install.
Maybe it's not that great.


3) Let's say "f the FHS" and change /home to /users.


Only if we can call it /Users.


Not "/Documents and Settings"?

- --
David Cantrell <dcantrell@redhat.com>

Red Hat / Honolulu, HI

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrqPzAACgkQ5hsjjIy1VkkLSQCg6OAEYM5FbX rzGHJcy1ugNK/n
fFEAoOyvECAvTyPtiy7pkGOIw3VcgIul
=A6BT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 10-30-2009, 02:20 AM
David Lehman
 
Default - change our default partitioning scheme

On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 11:58 -0400, Chris Lumens wrote:
> Here's a patch series that ends up with creating a /home by default. The
> algorithm is basically:
>
> - VG < 50 GB: make /boot, swap, rest as /
> - VG >= 50 GB: make /boot, swap, / with a 50 GB max, rest as /home
>
> Let the arguing begin.

I think creating a separate /home is a good idea in many cases. I also
think that this approach seems pretty reasonable in general.

How does the split end up looking for some test cases? I'd be curious
how it looks for VG sizes of 50G, 60G, 80G, 100G, and 200G.

Dave

>
> - Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
> Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 10-30-2009, 03:53 AM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default - change our default partitioning scheme

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:58:15 -0400,
Chris Lumens <clumens@redhat.com> wrote:
> Here's a patch series that ends up with creating a /home by default. The
> algorithm is basically:
>
> - VG < 50 GB: make /boot, swap, rest as /
> - VG >= 50 GB: make /boot, swap, / with a 50 GB max, rest as /home
>
> Let the arguing begin.

I think you want a minimum size for /home.
Maybe something like:
- VG < 70 GB: make /boot, swap, rest as /
- VG >= 70 GB: make /boot, swap, / with a 50 GB max, rest as /home

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 10-30-2009, 06:15 AM
Hans de Goede
 
Default - change our default partitioning scheme

Hi,

On 10/30/2009 02:19 AM, David Cantrell wrote:

<snip>



For the standard hard disk size we see now, 50GB is nothing. Netbooks
present
a different use case. Are those users interested in a separate /home by
default? Should we care?



Yes (for example to only crypt /home, which is a nice performance boost
given netbook's speed, also for all the some reasons not netbook users
are interested in a separate /home)

So I would like to propose the following instead:
If the VG > 30 GB (32 GB - 2GB for /boot and overhead), do a split
/home and split things between home and /, 50/50 until / grows over
50 GB at which point we start only growing /home


Given how hard the live install concept is sold, I think it would be
worth our
time to do something for this use case.



Hmm, then again live installers may end up installing tons of stuff,
like openoffice, development tools, ... I don't really see the
space needs here being that much different after a couple of months of
use.

Regards,

Hans

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 10-30-2009, 12:37 PM
 
Default - change our default partitioning scheme

> I think you want a minimum size for /home.
> Maybe something like:
> - VG < 70 GB: make /boot, swap, rest as /
> - VG >= 70 GB: make /boot, swap, / with a 50 GB max, rest as /home

I don't think this is that important. Right now, we only guarantee that
/ will be a minimum of 1 GB, and then later check that the package set
is small enough to fit on that. Surely guaranteeing a minimum on the
size of /home is of less importance than /, and we don't do that.

Besides, this really only matters in the case where you have a VG
between 50 GB (or whatever) and 70 GB. I don't think that'll impact all
that many people.

- Chris

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 
Old 10-30-2009, 12:45 PM
Chris Lumens
 
Default - change our default partitioning scheme

> >For the standard hard disk size we see now, 50GB is nothing. Netbooks
> >present
> >a different use case. Are those users interested in a separate /home by
> >default? Should we care?
> >
>
> Yes (for example to only crypt /home, which is a nice performance boost
> given netbook's speed, also for all the some reasons not netbook users
> are interested in a separate /home)

The problem with this is that coming up with the split values when you
only have 8 GB or 10 GB or 15 GB is way harder, and the consequences of
getting it even a little wrong are much larger. If the user's got 200
GB to work with and we end up making / 5 GB too large, probably not a
problem. If they've only got 10 GB to work with and we make / 2 GB too
large, that's probably a much bigger problem.

> So I would like to propose the following instead:
> If the VG > 30 GB (32 GB - 2GB for /boot and overhead), do a split
> /home and split things between home and /, 50/50 until / grows over
> 50 GB at which point we start only growing /home

Well, see my previous comments about how we don't recommend a separate
/var, /usr/local, etc. by default and also needing enough space for
preupgrade. If they only have 30 GB to work with, we're giving them a
15 GB home. Is that enough for an installed system, and another whole
system's worth of packages, plus whatever other crud the user may have
laying around?

> >Given how hard the live install concept is sold, I think it would be
> >worth our
> >time to do something for this use case.
> >
>
> Hmm, then again live installers may end up installing tons of stuff,
> like openoffice, development tools, ... I don't really see the
> space needs here being that much different after a couple of months of
> use.

True, the user could add a bunch of other stuff later. However, one
good thing about the livecd case is that we know the size of the payload
up front, so we can at least make slightly smarter suggestions. I'm not
completely sold on this idea yet but it's worth thinking about.

- Chris

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:09 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org