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 > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-09-2012, 09:23 PM
Jim Byrnes
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

On 09/09/2012 11:01 AM, Liam Proven wrote:

On 9 September 2012 16:49, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net> wrote:


I know from reading your posts in the past you know way more than I do, but
I don't agree here. Maybe I didn't make my intent clear. The two drives
will /never/ be hooked up at the same time. The old HD will only be a
fallback if for some reason I can't get everything working on the new
install.


OK, that's fine. It's your PC! Do what you like! :¬) But one question
- how are you going to transfer all your files & data across from old
to new disk?


As I mention when I started this thread I would transfer them to my
laptop and then back to the new HD. Thinking about my response I
realized that I have an external USB HD that I use for regular back ups
so they would be available there also.



So are you saying here that my calculation method is correct, but I could
reclaim a lot of space by doing what you outline above. In that case I
should do the clean up and then redo the calculation.


If you like, yes. I am not sure there is much to be availed from it,
but if you want to, knock yourself out. :¬)

I don't know this, but I suspect something like it might be the case:
if you have a big root FS, then Ubuntu won't bother to be very
diligent about cleaning up package caches and so on. It might only
take the time to clear down caches, possibly to purge old logfiles and
so on once free space on the volume drops to a certain percentage or
something. So if you have a relatively huge filesystem, it will let
stuff mount up; if you have a smaller one, it will purge caches & logs
more often to ensure that the drive never gets below 25% full or
something.

This is pure supposition, I emphasise.

But in terms of space for root - a full install of Ubuntu is only a
few gig. Add in all the proprietary extras and so on and it's still
not much bigger than that. You can fit a working, complete,
un-pared-down install into 4GB. 8GB will be less than 50% used when
new. 16GB will be under 25% used when new, full updated & with a few
extra apps added - I routinely add things like Pidgin, Synaptic,
Google Chrome, a few indicators, commonly VirtualBox and so on.

16GB is quite generous and will normally go 75% unused. 32GB is
extremely generous and will typically go about 85-90% unused. More
than that is just throwing disk space away, but hey, if you have it,
there is nothing to stop you throwing it away.

My server machines (no GUI etc.) typically run off 8GB drives or
partitions and have tons of room to spare.




All the numbers you state above just make me more than ever want to know
if the assumptions I made in calculating what the size of my / partition
would be if I had a separate /home partition on my present HD. I
calculated it to be 41GB which seemed high compared to what I saw on the
web and certainly is when looking at your numbers. So far no one has
said "Hey Jim your numbers are way off because..."


Regards, Jim



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-09-2012, 10:10 PM
Johnny Rosenberg
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

2012/9/9 Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net>:
> On 09/09/2012 11:01 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>>
>> On 9 September 2012 16:49, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I know from reading your posts in the past you know way more than I do,
>>> but
>>> I don't agree here. Maybe I didn't make my intent clear. The two drives
>>> will /never/ be hooked up at the same time. The old HD will only be a
>>> fallback if for some reason I can't get everything working on the new
>>> install.
>>
>>
>> OK, that's fine. It's your PC! Do what you like! :¬) But one question
>> - how are you going to transfer all your files & data across from old
>> to new disk?
>
>
> As I mention when I started this thread I would transfer them to my laptop
> and then back to the new HD. Thinking about my response I realized that I
> have an external USB HD that I use for regular back ups so they would be
> available there also.
>
>
>>> So are you saying here that my calculation method is correct, but I could
>>> reclaim a lot of space by doing what you outline above. In that case I
>>> should do the clean up and then redo the calculation.
>>
>>
>> If you like, yes. I am not sure there is much to be availed from it,
>> but if you want to, knock yourself out. :¬)
>>
>> I don't know this, but I suspect something like it might be the case:
>> if you have a big root FS, then Ubuntu won't bother to be very
>> diligent about cleaning up package caches and so on. It might only
>> take the time to clear down caches, possibly to purge old logfiles and
>> so on once free space on the volume drops to a certain percentage or
>> something. So if you have a relatively huge filesystem, it will let
>> stuff mount up; if you have a smaller one, it will purge caches & logs
>> more often to ensure that the drive never gets below 25% full or
>> something.
>>
>> This is pure supposition, I emphasise.
>>
>> But in terms of space for root - a full install of Ubuntu is only a
>> few gig. Add in all the proprietary extras and so on and it's still
>> not much bigger than that. You can fit a working, complete,
>> un-pared-down install into 4GB. 8GB will be less than 50% used when
>> new. 16GB will be under 25% used when new, full updated & with a few
>> extra apps added - I routinely add things like Pidgin, Synaptic,
>> Google Chrome, a few indicators, commonly VirtualBox and so on.
>>
>> 16GB is quite generous and will normally go 75% unused. 32GB is
>> extremely generous and will typically go about 85-90% unused. More
>> than that is just throwing disk space away, but hey, if you have it,
>> there is nothing to stop you throwing it away.
>>
>> My server machines (no GUI etc.) typically run off 8GB drives or
>> partitions and have tons of room to spare.
>>
>>
>
> All the numbers you state above just make me more than ever want to know if
> the assumptions I made in calculating what the size of my / partition would
> be if I had a separate /home partition on my present HD. I calculated it to
> be 41GB which seemed high compared to what I saw on the web and certainly is
> when looking at your numbers. So far no one has said "Hey Jim your numbers
> are way off because..."
>
> Regards, Jim

I don't know if this is of any help, but I guess I could share my file
system data. I installed Ubuntu 12.04 today from scratch, except that
I kept my files on my /home partition. My previous version was Ubuntu
10.10, so I figured that I would save a lot of time doing this from
scratch rather than upgrade from the update manager.

Anyway, my internal drive, which is 300 GB is split into the following
partitions:
sda5 is my / directory and it is 18.3 GiB, but only 4.9 GiB (≈28 %) is
used at the moment, so I guess 18.3 GiB is way overkill. Maybe
somewhat less than 10 would be more reasonable, let's say 7 or 8.
sda6 is my /boot partition. I guess it's not necessary to have /boot
on a separate partition, and I am not sure why I have it, but it's
rather small anyway: 938.0 MiB, that's less than 1 GiB. Only 186.2 MiB
(≈20 %) of it is used, though.
sda7 is my 1.86 GiB swap partiton.
sda8 is my /home directory and it holds the rest of the drive, which
is 272.3 GiB. How much I used so far is not very interesting, since it
depends on what kind of files you have and how many. For Video
production, my drive might not be big enough in the long run, but I'm
mostly an audio guy (and kind of a musician) so there are a lot of
FLAC files, but also some images and videos. One need to have more
than one hobby in life, right…? I can see no reason to keep a part of
the drive unused, because sooner or later you use more space than you
though you would. I use approximately 60 % of my /home space, which is
157.6 GiB.

So, if I had your stuff, I would probably try 8 GiB (≈8.6 GB) for /,
no separate /boot partition (unless someone suddenly gave me a very
good reason for it) and the rest for /home, which would be about 991.4
GB, right? Minus your Swap partition, of course. I don't think you
mentioned it, but maybe I just missed it somehow. So, if 4 GB (≈3.73
GiB) of Swap, then maybe 9 GB for /, 4 GB for Swap and 987 GB for
/home would work fine. Or 10 – 4 – 986… Well, with 1 TB it's not that
critical… ☺


Johnny Rosenberg

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-09-2012, 10:14 PM
Avi Greenbury
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

James Freer wrote:

> I actually did this exercise for the first time a couple of weeks
> ago. First time i was a little unsure like yourself. I have a 500G
> disk with 4G RAM. For swap you need twice your RAM but over 2G stick
> with the amount of RAM... is what i read.

Swap as double your RAM has never been a need, it was once a rough
guideline in an old (1990s) Solaris manual.

The only reason to have anything more than about 100MB of swap is for
hibernation, in which case you need as much swap as you're likely to be
using memory when you hibernate. If you're likely to be swapping when
hibernating then you need to still have enough space free for all your
memory plus that swap again. You also need more memory.

In shorter:

[swap size] = 2 x [swap used] + [memory used]

at the point where you hibernate. Realistically, you're unlikely to be
swapping so making it as big as the RAM is a good bet.

Of course, none of this really needs to be thought about when
partitioning if you use a swap file; you can just resize that as needed
inside of any other partition.

--
Avi

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-09-2012, 10:28 PM
Avi Greenbury
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

Jim Byrnes wrote:

> First should I upgrade or do a clean install. When I went from
> Karmac to Lucid I did an upgrade. It seemed to work well and I have
> had no problems, but I see a lot of people advocating a clean
> install.

This, I feel, is largely because people who have no problems tend to
not mention it. I've just had my first ever non-straightforward in-place
upgrade, and all that went wrong was that for an hour and a half I had
no window decorations. That was to a Beta release, too.

Generally, in-place upgrades seem to go just fine.

> Looking at my home directory I see it has become a jumbled
> mess so doing a clean install would give me a chance to restore some
> order.

What makes you feel it's a "jumbled mess"? A fresh install will also
remove all your installed packages - a fresh start on a home directory
would be more easily made with a new user account.

> Thinking about doing the clean install I came up with this idea. I
> have a brand new spare HD. I could put it in my case, unhook the old
> one and hookup the new one. Install 12.04, get it running and
> install what I need. Then hookup the old HD and copy home and what
> ever else I find I need to my laptop. Hookup the new HD and copy
> over what I need from my laptop. This way I have an untouched copy
> of 10.04 to use until I get 12.04 setup and running the way I want
> it. Does that make sense?

I've another idea. Plug that disk in and use it as a backup, then
do the upgrade.

If the upgrade goes wrong you have a backup to use. If it goes well,
you have a backup to use if something else goes wrong.

> $ sudo du -shc / => total 105G
>
> $ du -shc /home => total 64G

That looks large, but not way out. I've run systems with non-/home as
40G before without them filling up, but the size of it depends on how
much software you install, essentially. In the end, though, it's
entirely dependent on your usage.

Also, du has a '-x' switch which causes it to not traverse filesystems;
you might have included things under /media or /mnt in that du above.

> If it was valid I am thinking of a / of ~100GB and /home of ~200GB,
> does that seem OK?

That certainly seems workable. It's not especially difficult to change
afterwards (though with large partitions it can be time consuming).

--
Avi

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-10-2012, 12:59 AM
Jim Byrnes
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

On 09/09/2012 05:28 PM, Avi Greenbury wrote:

Jim Byrnes wrote:


First should I upgrade or do a clean install. When I went from
Karmac to Lucid I did an upgrade. It seemed to work well and I have
had no problems, but I see a lot of people advocating a clean
install.


This, I feel, is largely because people who have no problems tend to
not mention it. I've just had my first ever non-straightforward in-place
upgrade, and all that went wrong was that for an hour and a half I had
no window decorations. That was to a Beta release, too.

Generally, in-place upgrades seem to go just fine.


Looking at my home directory I see it has become a jumbled
mess so doing a clean install would give me a chance to restore some
order.


What makes you feel it's a "jumbled mess"? A fresh install will also
remove all your installed packages - a fresh start on a home directory
would be more easily made with a new user account.


It has become unorganized. I go looking for stuff and its not where I
think it should be. Normally I keep things well organized but this has
gotten away from me. I'm sure I could go through and get it organized
but I am starting to look at a clean install as a way to start fresh and
do a better job this time.



Thinking about doing the clean install I came up with this idea. I
have a brand new spare HD. I could put it in my case, unhook the old
one and hookup the new one. Install 12.04, get it running and
install what I need. Then hookup the old HD and copy home and what
ever else I find I need to my laptop. Hookup the new HD and copy
over what I need from my laptop. This way I have an untouched copy
of 10.04 to use until I get 12.04 setup and running the way I want
it. Does that make sense?


I've another idea. Plug that disk in and use it as a backup, then
do the upgrade.

If the upgrade goes wrong you have a backup to use. If it goes well,
you have a backup to use if something else goes wrong.


$ sudo du -shc / => total 105G

$ du -shc /home => total 64G


That looks large, but not way out. I've run systems with non-/home as
40G before without them filling up, but the size of it depends on how
much software you install, essentially. In the end, though, it's
entirely dependent on your usage.


I didn't see that, thanks. As it turns out there was not much in them
anyway.



Also, du has a '-x' switch which causes it to not traverse filesystems;
you might have included things under /media or /mnt in that du above.


If it was valid I am thinking of a / of ~100GB and /home of ~200GB,
does that seem OK?


That certainly seems workable. It's not especially difficult to change
afterwards (though with large partitions it can be time consuming).



Thanks, Jim



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-10-2012, 01:19 AM
Jim Byrnes
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

On 09/09/2012 05:10 PM, Johnny Rosenberg wrote:

2012/9/9 Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net>:

On 09/09/2012 11:01 AM, Liam Proven wrote:


On 9 September 2012 16:49, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net> wrote:



I know from reading your posts in the past you know way more than I do,
but
I don't agree here. Maybe I didn't make my intent clear. The two drives
will /never/ be hooked up at the same time. The old HD will only be a
fallback if for some reason I can't get everything working on the new
install.



OK, that's fine. It's your PC! Do what you like! :¬) But one question
- how are you going to transfer all your files & data across from old
to new disk?



As I mention when I started this thread I would transfer them to my laptop
and then back to the new HD. Thinking about my response I realized that I
have an external USB HD that I use for regular back ups so they would be
available there also.



So are you saying here that my calculation method is correct, but I could
reclaim a lot of space by doing what you outline above. In that case I
should do the clean up and then redo the calculation.



If you like, yes. I am not sure there is much to be availed from it,
but if you want to, knock yourself out. :¬)

I don't know this, but I suspect something like it might be the case:
if you have a big root FS, then Ubuntu won't bother to be very
diligent about cleaning up package caches and so on. It might only
take the time to clear down caches, possibly to purge old logfiles and
so on once free space on the volume drops to a certain percentage or
something. So if you have a relatively huge filesystem, it will let
stuff mount up; if you have a smaller one, it will purge caches & logs
more often to ensure that the drive never gets below 25% full or
something.

This is pure supposition, I emphasise.

But in terms of space for root - a full install of Ubuntu is only a
few gig. Add in all the proprietary extras and so on and it's still
not much bigger than that. You can fit a working, complete,
un-pared-down install into 4GB. 8GB will be less than 50% used when
new. 16GB will be under 25% used when new, full updated & with a few
extra apps added - I routinely add things like Pidgin, Synaptic,
Google Chrome, a few indicators, commonly VirtualBox and so on.

16GB is quite generous and will normally go 75% unused. 32GB is
extremely generous and will typically go about 85-90% unused. More
than that is just throwing disk space away, but hey, if you have it,
there is nothing to stop you throwing it away.

My server machines (no GUI etc.) typically run off 8GB drives or
partitions and have tons of room to spare.




All the numbers you state above just make me more than ever want to know if
the assumptions I made in calculating what the size of my / partition would
be if I had a separate /home partition on my present HD. I calculated it to
be 41GB which seemed high compared to what I saw on the web and certainly is
when looking at your numbers. So far no one has said "Hey Jim your numbers
are way off because..."

Regards, Jim


I don't know if this is of any help, but I guess I could share my file
system data. I installed Ubuntu 12.04 today from scratch, except that
I kept my files on my /home partition. My previous version was Ubuntu
10.10, so I figured that I would save a lot of time doing this from
scratch rather than upgrade from the update manager.

Anyway, my internal drive, which is 300 GB is split into the following
partitions:
sda5 is my / directory and it is 18.3 GiB, but only 4.9 GiB (≈28 %) is
used at the moment, so I guess 18.3 GiB is way overkill. Maybe
somewhat less than 10 would be more reasonable, let's say 7 or 8.
sda6 is my /boot partition. I guess it's not necessary to have /boot
on a separate partition, and I am not sure why I have it, but it's
rather small anyway: 938.0 MiB, that's less than 1 GiB. Only 186.2 MiB
(≈20 %) of it is used, though.
sda7 is my 1.86 GiB swap partiton.
sda8 is my /home directory and it holds the rest of the drive, which
is 272.3 GiB. How much I used so far is not very interesting, since it
depends on what kind of files you have and how many. For Video
production, my drive might not be big enough in the long run, but I'm
mostly an audio guy (and kind of a musician) so there are a lot of
FLAC files, but also some images and videos. One need to have more
than one hobby in life, right…? I can see no reason to keep a part of
the drive unused, because sooner or later you use more space than you
though you would. I use approximately 60 % of my /home space, which is
157.6 GiB.

So, if I had your stuff, I would probably try 8 GiB (≈8.6 GB) for /,
no separate /boot partition (unless someone suddenly gave me a very
good reason for it) and the rest for /home, which would be about 991.4
GB, right? Minus your Swap partition, of course. I don't think you
mentioned it, but maybe I just missed it somehow. So, if 4 GB (≈3.73
GiB) of Swap, then maybe 9 GB for /, 4 GB for Swap and 987 GB for
/home would work fine. Or 10 – 4 – 986… Well, with 1 TB it's not that
critical… ☺


Johnny Rosenberg



I think 8GiB would be to small for me. By my calculation I have 40GB +
outside of my present home folder. If my present setup had a separate
/home partition that 40GB would be in / right? Put another way if I open
nautilus and click File System everything displayed except home would be
in / is that correct.


Regards, Jim


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-10-2012, 07:25 AM
Colin Law
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

On 10 September 2012 02:19, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> I think 8GiB would be to small for me. By my calculation I have 40GB +
> outside of my present home folder. If my present setup had a separate /home
> partition that 40GB would be in / right? Put another way if I open nautilus
> and click File System everything displayed except home would be in / is that
> correct.

8 GB is enough for an initial install but you would find yourself
running out as new kernels were added and the apt cache got bigger,
which would mean you would have to keep cleaning it up. If you allow
20 or so then it should not fill up for years. To find why you are
using 40 on your current system run the Disk Usage Analyser and tell
it to scan '/' and it will show you where the space is used. It will
take a few minutes to do the scan.

Colin

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-10-2012, 06:34 PM
Jim Byrnes
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

On 09/10/2012 02:25 AM, Colin Law wrote:

On 10 September 2012 02:19, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net> wrote:

...

I think 8GiB would be to small for me. By my calculation I have 40GB +
outside of my present home folder. If my present setup had a separate /home
partition that 40GB would be in / right? Put another way if I open nautilus
and click File System everything displayed except home would be in / is that
correct.


8 GB is enough for an initial install but you would find yourself
running out as new kernels were added and the apt cache got bigger,
which would mean you would have to keep cleaning it up. If you allow
20 or so then it should not fill up for years. To find why you are
using 40 on your current system run the Disk Usage Analyser and tell
it to scan '/' and it will show you where the space is used. It will
take a few minutes to do the scan.

Colin



Colin,

Thanks for the tip. Running it seems to say that my / is 12GB not the
41GB I had calculated earlier. Since this thread is getting rather long
and moving away from its subject line, I'll start a new thread about
these sizes.


Regards, Jim


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:08 PM.

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