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 09-08-2012, 07:05 PM
Jim Byrnes
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

Sooner or later I will need to move to 12.04. Before I make the move I
need to decide a couple of things.


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. 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.


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?


This time I want to try a separate /home partition. I'm trying to decide
how much space to give / and how much to /home. The new HD is a 1TB
one, I will probably only format about 300GB. My current HD is 500GB and
I formatted about 290GB and have 146GB free.


I googled trying trying to find some guidance on how to allocate the
available space between / and /home, but found widely varying
suggestions. I decided to look at what I was using on my setup now


$ sudo du -shc / => total 105G

$ du -shc /home => total 64G

So this tells me that if I had a separate / and /home, / would be 41G.
41GB seems large compared to sizes I saw when I doing my search and many
of those authors said they installed "tons of stuff". So is the method
I used to calculate my current / size valid?


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


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 09-08-2012, 07:26 PM
Perry Bhandal
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

I prefer a clean install. I keep a copy of /home from my previous install, and copy over config files for applications that are too time consuming to reconfigure.

I don't know what the collective wisdom is about allocations, but I've never set / to more than 15 gigs. I usually do




/ -> 15 gigs
swap -> ram*2
/home -> Remaining space

Perry


On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net> wrote:



Sooner or later I will need to move to 12.04. *Before I make the move I need to decide a couple of things.



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. *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.






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?






This time I want to try a separate /home partition. I'm trying to decide how much space to give / and how much to /home. *The new HD is a 1TB one, I will probably only format about 300GB. My current HD is 500GB and I formatted about 290GB and have 146GB free.






I googled trying trying to find some guidance on how to allocate the available space between / and /home, but found widely varying suggestions. * I decided to look at what I was using on my setup now



$ sudo du -shc / * => *total 105G



$ du -shc /home * *=> *total 64G



So this tells me that if I had a separate / and /home, / would be 41G. 41GB seems large compared to sizes I saw when I doing my search and many of those authors said they installed "tons of stuff". *So is the method I used to calculate my current / size valid?






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



Thanks, *Jim





--

ubuntu-users mailing list

ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com

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



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-08-2012, 08:32 PM
James Freer
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

Sooner or later I will need to move to 12.04. Before I make the move I need
to decide a couple of things.


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. 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.


I have noticed a number of folk seem to have had problems somehow doing
upgrades. I have always done a clean install from CD and not had any. Now having
got a new PC i will probably do a USB install.


This time I want to try a separate /home partition. I'm trying to decide how
much space to give / and how much to /home. The new HD is a 1TB one, I will
probably only format about 300GB. My current HD is 500GB and I formatted
about 290GB and have 146GB free.


I googled trying trying to find some guidance on how to allocate the
available space between / and /home, but found widely varying suggestions.
I decided to look at what I was using on my setup now


So this tells me that if I had a separate / and /home, / would be 41G. 41GB
seems large compared to sizes I saw when I doing my search and many of those
authors said they installed "tons of stuff". So is the method I used to
calculate my current / size valid?


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


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. But the install disk actually does it for you and answers that question.


So how much space to allocate? I used to have two hard disks so put the system
on one and used the second for storage - ideal way to my mind. I'm actually a
xubuntu user - which uses <6G. I chose 100G for / and the rest for /home. Just
seemed a safe place to start. Now i think 50G would have been a better choice as
i've got 87G unused. I'm not going to put that much on to use up that amount of
space.


In summary on the install ubuntu have got everything thought out [excellent OS!]
you only have to chose the size for / and it will do the rest unless you want to
allow for a FAT32 partition or another distribution. Personally i think the two
drives is the safer route... but my smaller drives are pata not sata [think i'd
have to look into a conversion cable maybe when i get the time].


HTH

james

--
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, 01:32 AM
Pastor JW
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

On 09/08/2012 12:26 PM, Perry Bhandal wrote:

I prefer a clean install. I keep a copy of /home from my previous
install, and copy over config files for applications that are too time
consuming to reconfigure.

I don't know what the collective wisdom is about allocations, but I've
never set / to more than 15 gigs. I usually do

/ -> 15 gigs
swap -> ram*2
/home -> Remaining space

Perry


On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net
<mailto:jf_byrnes@comcast.net>> wrote:

Sooner or later I will need to move to 12.04. Before I make the
move I need to decide a couple of things.

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. 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.

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?

This time I want to try a separate /home partition. I'm trying to
decide how much space to give / and how much to /home. The new HD
is a 1TB one, I will probably only format about 300GB. My current HD
is 500GB and I formatted about 290GB and have 146GB free.

I googled trying trying to find some guidance on how to allocate the
available space between / and /home, but found widely varying
suggestions. I decided to look at what I was using on my setup now

$ sudo du -shc / => total 105G

$ du -shc /home => total 64G

So this tells me that if I had a separate / and /home, / would be
41G. 41GB seems large compared to sizes I saw when I doing my search
and many of those authors said they installed "tons of stuff". So
is the method I used to calculate my current / size valid?

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


I have noticed that top posters always seem to recommend a "clean
install" likely a carry over from an old mickysoft mindset. Resetting
up my system to work for me, never has impressed me so I looked for a
distro which works without me having to reset up everything every time I
"upgrade" my distro. Actually, doing all that extra work is not really
an upgrade at all, so I looked for a distro which would upgrade itself
WITHOUT trashing my settings and without causing me that old windoze
sense of panic each and every upgrade. Ubuntu since 2007 has done this
flawlessly for our use and I'm happy to say every one of our 31 machines
has upgraded without a hitch everytime. Our only problem was kwallet so
we don't use it.



--
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, 01:13 PM
Liam Proven
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

On 8 September 2012 20:05, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net> wrote:
> Sooner or later I will need to move to 12.04. Before I make the move I need
> to decide a couple of things.
>
> 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. 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.

The upgrade will probably work fine, but f you can spare the time &
effort to do a clean install, the result will be smaller, faster &
probably more stable.

Running 2 side-by-side is fine and safe and if you wish you can use a
single swap partition shared between multiple installations - this is
perfectly fine.

> 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?

Yes, that's fine. Unlike Windows, which can get confused and use
resources from an old installation in a new one, *buntu is smart
enough not to muddle them up. You don't need to disconnect your old
HD.

> This time I want to try a separate /home partition. I'm trying to decide how
> much space to give / and how much to /home. The new HD is a 1TB one, I will
> probably only format about 300GB. My current HD is 500GB and I formatted
> about 290GB and have 146GB free.

Out of curiosity, what's the rest of the space for? Windows?

Anyway, in terms of partitioning.

You only really need 3:
/ - also known as "the root filesystem"
/home - AKA "the home filesystem"
swap - which doesn't get mounted, as such, so does not have a path

All the software goes in the root FS. All your data goes in /home.

These days, data is typically much bigger than S/W. Photos take many
hundreds of meg, ditto music; videos take gigs.

You don't usually need a lot of room for S/W.

I would say that 8GB is a stingy amount of space but would probably
work fine. 16GB is generous. 32GB is madly generous. More, for most
people, would be wasteful.

Swap, as you say, is typically 2× RAM (this is an old & now
over-generous rule of thumb & is almost profligate these days, but
hey, with a thousand gig to play with, why not?)

All the rest can go to home.

I always do it in a very old-fashion, standard way, using binary round
numbers (i.e. powers of 2), like this:

[ small optional DOS-bootable primary for BIOS flashing etc. - say
32MB, yes, *mega*bytes]
[ bootable primary root - say 32GB]
[ extended partition for whole rest of disk; in there: [/home] [swap] ]

> I googled trying trying to find some guidance on how to allocate the
> available space between / and /home, but found widely varying suggestions.
> I decided to look at what I was using on my setup now
>
> $ sudo du -shc / => total 105G
>
> $ du -shc /home => total 64G

Just use GParted. Much easier.

I suggest you give descriptive labels to your existing partitions.
Gparted will do this & it is safe & non-destructive. Mine are called
things like:
"MS-DOS 32MB"
"Spare primary"
"Spare Ubuntu root"
"Win2K 16GB"
"Win7 24GB"
"Home"
"DATA 52GB"
"2GB SWAP"

> So this tells me that if I had a separate / and /home, / would be 41G. 41GB
> seems large compared to sizes I saw when I doing my search and many of those
> authors said they installed "tons of stuff". So is the method I used to
> calculate my current / size valid?

41GB is a lot but not madly so on a 1TB drive. It's only 4% of the space.

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

100 gig is /way/ over the top. I see no reason for more than 32GB max.


--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884

--
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, 02:15 PM
Jim Byrnes
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

On 09/09/2012 08:13 AM, Liam Proven wrote:

On 8 September 2012 20:05, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net> wrote:

Sooner or later I will need to move to 12.04. Before I make the move I need
to decide a couple of things.

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. 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.


The upgrade will probably work fine, but f you can spare the time &
effort to do a clean install, the result will be smaller, faster &
probably more stable.

Running 2 side-by-side is fine and safe and if you wish you can use a
single swap partition shared between multiple installations - this is
perfectly fine.


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?


Yes, that's fine. Unlike Windows, which can get confused and use
resources from an old installation in a new one, *buntu is smart
enough not to muddle them up. You don't need to disconnect your old
HD.


Wouldn't there be confusion if there were two bootable HDs in the
system? Or would GRUB be modified on the fly to handle them?



This time I want to try a separate /home partition. I'm trying to decide how
much space to give / and how much to /home. The new HD is a 1TB one, I will
probably only format about 300GB. My current HD is 500GB and I formatted
about 290GB and have 146GB free.


Out of curiosity, what's the rest of the space for? Windows?


No, its just space I don't need so I didn't format it. Also wouldn't
Ubuntu's periodic checking of the disk and maybe any repairs go faster
with less tracks formatted?



Anyway, in terms of partitioning.

You only really need 3:
/ - also known as "the root filesystem"
/home - AKA "the home filesystem"
swap - which doesn't get mounted, as such, so does not have a path

All the software goes in the root FS. All your data goes in /home.

These days, data is typically much bigger than S/W. Photos take many
hundreds of meg, ditto music; videos take gigs.

You don't usually need a lot of room for S/W.

I would say that 8GB is a stingy amount of space but would probably
work fine. 16GB is generous. 32GB is madly generous. More, for most
people, would be wasteful.

Swap, as you say, is typically 2 RAM (this is an old & now
over-generous rule of thumb & is almost profligate these days, but
hey, with a thousand gig to play with, why not?)

All the rest can go to home.

I always do it in a very old-fashion, standard way, using binary round
numbers (i.e. powers of 2), like this:

[ small optional DOS-bootable primary for BIOS flashing etc. - say
32MB, yes, *mega*bytes]
[ bootable primary root - say 32GB]
[ extended partition for whole rest of disk; in there: [/home] [swap] ]


I googled trying trying to find some guidance on how to allocate the
available space between / and /home, but found widely varying suggestions.
I decided to look at what I was using on my setup now

$ sudo du -shc / => total 105G

$ du -shc /home => total 64G


Just use GParted. Much easier.


Doesn't GParted just show partitions? Right now I don't have a separate
/home which is why I am trying to figure out how space I would need in /
on my system right now if I had a separate /home partition.



I suggest you give descriptive labels to your existing partitions.
Gparted will do this & it is safe & non-destructive. Mine are called
things like:
"MS-DOS 32MB"
"Spare primary"
"Spare Ubuntu root"
"Win2K 16GB"
"Win7 24GB"
"Home"
"DATA 52GB"
"2GB SWAP"


So this tells me that if I had a separate / and /home, / would be 41G. 41GB
seems large compared to sizes I saw when I doing my search and many of those
authors said they installed "tons of stuff". So is the method I used to
calculate my current / size valid?


41GB is a lot but not madly so on a 1TB drive. It's only 4% of the space.


Reading back over what I wrote maybe I wasn't clear. Right now I only
have one big partition (disregarding swap). I am trying to determine
how big of / partition I need just to accommodate the S/W I have now.
To do this I took the size of / and subtracted the size of home. This
gave me a size of 41GB which seemed large so I am wondering if the
method I used is valid.



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


100 gig is /way/ over the top. I see no reason for more than 32GB max.




But my calculation tells me it is already 41GB which is why I am
wondering if my calculation is 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 09-09-2012, 02:50 PM
Liam Proven
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

On 9 September 2012 15:15, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 09/09/2012 08:13 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>>
>> On 8 September 2012 20:05, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sooner or later I will need to move to 12.04. Before I make the move I
>>> need
>>> to decide a couple of things.
>>>
>>> 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. 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.
>>
>>
>> The upgrade will probably work fine, but f you can spare the time &
>> effort to do a clean install, the result will be smaller, faster &
>> probably more stable.
>>
>> Running 2 side-by-side is fine and safe and if you wish you can use a
>> single swap partition shared between multiple installations - this is
>> perfectly fine.
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's fine. Unlike Windows, which can get confused and use
>> resources from an old installation in a new one, *buntu is smart
>> enough not to muddle them up. You don't need to disconnect your old
>> HD.
>
>
> Wouldn't there be confusion if there were two bootable HDs in the system?

No. The bootloader will only be on the first.

There will be /more/ trouble if you /do/ disconnect the old drive &
reconnect it later, as then, there /will/ be 2 drives with a
bootloader in their MBR.

Also, unlike on PATA (EIDE) drives, with SATA, determining which is
the "first" and which the "second" drive is a bit of a theoretical
exercise; they are all peers.

There is a notional order in terms of the numbering of the connectors
on the motherboard, but this can be overridden in the BIOS so it's not
much help.

I'd definitely leave both connected.

Also, if you have the root FS on one drive and /home on a second, that
gives a slight performance improvement. (Traditionally, it was best
practice to put swap on a different physical disk from root, but as
modern machines have gigs of RAM and don't really use swap much at
all, this no longer offers much benefit.)

> Or
> would GRUB be modified on the fly to handle them?

GRUB will only be installed on the first disk. It will be controlled
by the most recent Linux to be installed.

>>> This time I want to try a separate /home partition. I'm trying to decide
>>> how
>>> much space to give / and how much to /home. The new HD is a 1TB one, I
>>> will
>>> probably only format about 300GB. My current HD is 500GB and I formatted
>>> about 290GB and have 146GB free.
>>
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what's the rest of the space for? Windows?
>
>
> No, its just space I don't need so I didn't format it.

Er, OK. Seems weird to me, but whatever turns you on.

> Also wouldn't
> Ubuntu's periodic checking of the disk and maybe any repairs go faster with
> less tracks formatted?

No.

>> Anyway, in terms of partitioning.
>>
>> You only really need 3:
>> / - also known as "the root filesystem"
>> /home - AKA "the home filesystem"
>> swap - which doesn't get mounted, as such, so does not have a path
>>
>> All the software goes in the root FS. All your data goes in /home.
>>
>> These days, data is typically much bigger than S/W. Photos take many
>> hundreds of meg, ditto music; videos take gigs.
>>
>> You don't usually need a lot of room for S/W.
>>
>> I would say that 8GB is a stingy amount of space but would probably
>> work fine. 16GB is generous. 32GB is madly generous. More, for most
>> people, would be wasteful.
>>
>> Swap, as you say, is typically 2× RAM (this is an old & now
>> over-generous rule of thumb & is almost profligate these days, but
>> hey, with a thousand gig to play with, why not?)
>>
>> All the rest can go to home.
>>
>> I always do it in a very old-fashion, standard way, using binary round
>> numbers (i.e. powers of 2), like this:
>>
>> [ small optional DOS-bootable primary for BIOS flashing etc. - say
>> 32MB, yes, *mega*bytes]
>> [ bootable primary root - say 32GB]
>> [ extended partition for whole rest of disk; in there: [/home] [swap] ]
>>
>>> I googled trying trying to find some guidance on how to allocate the
>>> available space between / and /home, but found widely varying
>>> suggestions.
>>> I decided to look at what I was using on my setup now
>>>
>>> $ sudo du -shc / => total 105G
>>>
>>> $ du -shc /home => total 64G
>>
>>
>> Just use GParted. Much easier.
>
>
> Doesn't GParted just show partitions?

It also shows space used in them.

> Right now I don't have a separate
> /home which is why I am trying to figure out how space I would need in / on
> my system right now if I had a separate /home partition.

OK. Well, I've already covered this.


>> I suggest you give descriptive labels to your existing partitions.
>> Gparted will do this & it is safe & non-destructive. Mine are called
>> things like:
>> "MS-DOS 32MB"
>> "Spare primary"
>> "Spare Ubuntu root"
>> "Win2K 16GB"
>> "Win7 24GB"
>> "Home"
>> "DATA 52GB"
>> "2GB SWAP"
>>
>>> So this tells me that if I had a separate / and /home, / would be 41G.
>>> 41GB
>>> seems large compared to sizes I saw when I doing my search and many of
>>> those
>>> authors said they installed "tons of stuff". So is the method I used to
>>> calculate my current / size valid?
>>
>>
>> 41GB is a lot but not madly so on a 1TB drive. It's only 4% of the space.
>
> Reading back over what I wrote maybe I wasn't clear.

No, it's more that I am a little hungover. :¬)

> Right now I only have
> one big partition (disregarding swap). I am trying to determine how big of
> / partition I need just to accommodate the S/W I have now. To do this I
> took the size of / and subtracted the size of home. This gave me a size of
> 41GB which seemed large so I am wondering if the method I used is valid.

There are probably tons of caches and things in there which aren't
needed and will be purged if you run short of space.

E.g. the APT package cache is often huge. To see how big, try this:

df -h ← to see how much free you have now

sudo apt-get clean

df -h ← you should see a big improvement

sudo apt-get autoclean

df -h ← small change this time

sudo apt-get autoremove

df -h ← again, not much change

sudo apt-get purge

df -h ← again, little difference

Also, look up your kernel version:

uname -a

E.g. 2.6.35 or something, followed by a hyphen & a build number, e.g. 2.6.35-22


Now go into Synaptic & search for that version number, *without* the
build number, e.g. 2.6.35

Click on the "status" column to sort the ones that are installed at
the top. (It's the first one, headed "S".)

You will probably see 2 things.

#1 - each kernel comes in 2 or 3 bits, "linux headers" and "linux image".

#2 - that you have loads of old kernels still there

You can safely remove all but the latest one. Highlight both parts of
each old version - hold down Control to select multiple items - then
right-click them and pick "mark for removal".

Then click Apply.

That will free up 100-200MB per kernel version with absolutely no
adverse effects.

>>> If it was valid I am thinking of a / of ~100GB and /home of ~200GB, does
>>> that seem OK?
>>
>> 100 gig is /way/ over the top. I see no reason for more than 32GB max.
>>
> But my calculation tells me it is already 41GB which is why I am wondering
> if my calculation is correct.

Caches, old config files, source files, log files & various other
cruft that builds up over the years.

Happily on Linux it has little impact on performance, unlike in
Windows. Linux is also very diligent about cleaning up its Temp
folder(s) & rarely leaves old stuff there, whereas most Windows boxes
have gigabytes of crap in there.

--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884

--
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, 02:52 PM
Liam Proven
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

On 9 September 2012 15:50, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> sudo apt-get autoremove

P.S. This step removes unneeded packages. It's /usually/ safe but not
100% guaranteed.

#1 make a note of what it wants to remove
#2 because I left "-y" off the end, it will ask for confirmation. Once
you have made a note, it's OK to say yes. If anything stops running
afterwards, just reinstall the missing packages.


--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884

--
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, 03:49 PM
Jim Byrnes
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

On 09/09/2012 09:50 AM, Liam Proven wrote:

On 9 September 2012 15:15, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net> wrote:

On 09/09/2012 08:13 AM, Liam Proven wrote:


On 8 September 2012 20:05, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes@comcast.net> wrote:


Sooner or later I will need to move to 12.04. Before I make the move I
need
to decide a couple of things.

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. 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.



The upgrade will probably work fine, but f you can spare the time &
effort to do a clean install, the result will be smaller, faster &
probably more stable.

Running 2 side-by-side is fine and safe and if you wish you can use a
single swap partition shared between multiple installations - this is
perfectly fine.


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?



Yes, that's fine. Unlike Windows, which can get confused and use
resources from an old installation in a new one, *buntu is smart
enough not to muddle them up. You don't need to disconnect your old
HD.



Wouldn't there be confusion if there were two bootable HDs in the system?


No. The bootloader will only be on the first.

There will be /more/ trouble if you /do/ disconnect the old drive &
reconnect it later, as then, there /will/ be 2 drives with a
bootloader in their MBR.

Also, unlike on PATA (EIDE) drives, with SATA, determining which is
the "first" and which the "second" drive is a bit of a theoretical
exercise; they are all peers.

There is a notional order in terms of the numbering of the connectors
on the motherboard, but this can be overridden in the BIOS so it's not
much help.

I'd definitely leave both connected.


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.



Also, if you have the root FS on one drive and /home on a second, that
gives a slight performance improvement. (Traditionally, it was best
practice to put swap on a different physical disk from root, but as
modern machines have gigs of RAM and don't really use swap much at
all, this no longer offers much benefit.)


Or
would GRUB be modified on the fly to handle them?


GRUB will only be installed on the first disk. It will be controlled
by the most recent Linux to be installed.


This time I want to try a separate /home partition. I'm trying to decide
how
much space to give / and how much to /home. The new HD is a 1TB one, I
will
probably only format about 300GB. My current HD is 500GB and I formatted
about 290GB and have 146GB free.



Out of curiosity, what's the rest of the space for? Windows?



No, its just space I don't need so I didn't format it.


Er, OK. Seems weird to me, but whatever turns you on.


Also wouldn't
Ubuntu's periodic checking of the disk and maybe any repairs go faster with
less tracks formatted?


No.


Anyway, in terms of partitioning.

You only really need 3:
/ - also known as "the root filesystem"
/home - AKA "the home filesystem"
swap - which doesn't get mounted, as such, so does not have a path

All the software goes in the root FS. All your data goes in /home.

These days, data is typically much bigger than S/W. Photos take many
hundreds of meg, ditto music; videos take gigs.

You don't usually need a lot of room for S/W.

I would say that 8GB is a stingy amount of space but would probably
work fine. 16GB is generous. 32GB is madly generous. More, for most
people, would be wasteful.

Swap, as you say, is typically 2× RAM (this is an old & now
over-generous rule of thumb & is almost profligate these days, but
hey, with a thousand gig to play with, why not?)

All the rest can go to home.

I always do it in a very old-fashion, standard way, using binary round
numbers (i.e. powers of 2), like this:

[ small optional DOS-bootable primary for BIOS flashing etc. - say
32MB, yes, *mega*bytes]
[ bootable primary root - say 32GB]
[ extended partition for whole rest of disk; in there: [/home] [swap] ]


I googled trying trying to find some guidance on how to allocate the
available space between / and /home, but found widely varying
suggestions.
I decided to look at what I was using on my setup now

$ sudo du -shc / => total 105G

$ du -shc /home => total 64G



Just use GParted. Much easier.



Doesn't GParted just show partitions?


It also shows space used in them.


Right now I don't have a separate
/home which is why I am trying to figure out how space I would need in / on
my system right now if I had a separate /home partition.


OK. Well, I've already covered this.



I suggest you give descriptive labels to your existing partitions.
Gparted will do this & it is safe & non-destructive. Mine are called
things like:
"MS-DOS 32MB"
"Spare primary"
"Spare Ubuntu root"
"Win2K 16GB"
"Win7 24GB"
"Home"
"DATA 52GB"
"2GB SWAP"


So this tells me that if I had a separate / and /home, / would be 41G.
41GB
seems large compared to sizes I saw when I doing my search and many of
those
authors said they installed "tons of stuff". So is the method I used to
calculate my current / size valid?



41GB is a lot but not madly so on a 1TB drive. It's only 4% of the space.


Reading back over what I wrote maybe I wasn't clear.


No, it's more that I am a little hungover. :¬)


Right now I only have
one big partition (disregarding swap). I am trying to determine how big of
/ partition I need just to accommodate the S/W I have now. To do this I
took the size of / and subtracted the size of home. This gave me a size of
41GB which seemed large so I am wondering if the method I used is valid.


There are probably tons of caches and things in there which aren't
needed and will be purged if you run short of space.

E.g. the APT package cache is often huge. To see how big, try this:

df -h ← to see how much free you have now

sudo apt-get clean

df -h ← you should see a big improvement

sudo apt-get autoclean

df -h ← small change this time

sudo apt-get autoremove

df -h ← again, not much change

sudo apt-get purge

df -h ← again, little difference

Also, look up your kernel version:

uname -a

E.g. 2.6.35 or something, followed by a hyphen & a build number, e.g. 2.6.35-22


Now go into Synaptic & search for that version number, *without* the
build number, e.g. 2.6.35

Click on the "status" column to sort the ones that are installed at
the top. (It's the first one, headed "S".)

You will probably see 2 things.

#1 - each kernel comes in 2 or 3 bits, "linux headers" and "linux image".

#2 - that you have loads of old kernels still there

You can safely remove all but the latest one. Highlight both parts of
each old version - hold down Control to select multiple items - then
right-click them and pick "mark for removal".

Then click Apply.

That will free up 100-200MB per kernel version with absolutely no
adverse effects.


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


100 gig is /way/ over the top. I see no reason for more than 32GB max.


But my calculation tells me it is already 41GB which is why I am wondering
if my calculation is correct.


Caches, old config files, source files, log files & various other
cruft that builds up over the years.

Happily on Linux it has little impact on performance, unlike in
Windows. Linux is also very diligent about cleaning up its Temp
folder(s) & rarely leaves old stuff there, whereas most Windows boxes
have gigabytes of crap in there.



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.


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, 04:01 PM
Liam Proven
 
Default Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

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?

> 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.


--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884

--
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 01:06 AM.

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