Partition / FS structure

agent_paul

agent_paul

agent_paul

Associate
Joined
4 Jul 2006
Posts
211
Hi guys,

I'm planning on reinstalling ubuntu on my server (which is going to be used for a variety of things but mainly as a file/web server) and was thinking about the partitioning/structure of the Hard drives.

i was thinking of setting it up as below and was wondering if it would create any issues.

HD1 2TB drive

partition 1 30Gigs for OS mounted on / ext3
partition 2 1-2Gigs swap
partition 3 rest of HD mounted on /home ext3

HD2 1TB drive

partition 1 whole drive mounted on /home/backup


does this format look ok? would i get any issues if i were to change distro etc?

any advice welcome
 
RAID will only work for like-sized disks so it's not easy for you unless you want to sacrifice 1 TB of disk. I suppose, therefore, that you should be careful to back up what's important to the smaller disk automatically every day so that you don't forget.
 
thanks Billy.

i think ill stick to a script that backs stuff up on my other drive. ive spent too much already on this machine and i'm trying to keep power consumption/noise down

thanks
 
Hi Dj_Jestar,

i had a look into ReiserFS about a year or 2 ago and concluded it might not be a stable/supported fs (maybe because all that news about the creator killing off his wife etc... or have i got it confused with another fs?). but obviously things change and it might be worth going back to have a look.

thanks
 
Last edited:
I run a file/web server at home and the vast majority of files are greater than 500 MiB. As with anything it's best to tailor the tech to the application. Given all that storage I'm thinking media server before old-fashioned, lots-of-wee-text-files web server.
 
hmmm all these choices just makes it more confusing. i think ill stick to ext3 for now but in the mean time look into xfs, lvm and probably ext4

thanks guys!
 
BillytheImpaler said:
I run a file/web server at home and the vast majority of files are greater than 500 MiB. As with anything it's best to tailor the tech to the application. Given all that storage I'm thinking media server before old-fashioned, lots-of-wee-text-files web server.
Click to expand...

Differences between Reiser and Ext3 are absolutely minimal anyway.. Just that Reiser has been better to me in the past, and is now also the 'offical' FS of Novell (Suse) iirc.
 
Just as a note, you might want to consider storing most of your stuff under a /mnt or similar.
I'd always keep /home at about 3gb or so, and keep media/ file server stuff separate in /mnt. Generally makes rebuilding easier :)

Cheers

-Leezer-
 
BillytheImpaler said:
I too keep my main storage mounted in /media/mountpoints.

It keeps all the home directory cruft out of my more permanent storage.
Click to expand...


i concur, i do this on one machine but on the other everything is under /home/me as it's all encrypted. Just think about what space you use and what you'll use in the future.

Also have you considered ext4?
 
thanks for the advice guys.

i went ahead and reinstalled the OS but not in time to read about changing the mount points to /media/mountpoint. i know ubuntu usually recommends that but i thought mounting everything else on /home was sufficient.

anyways, its all done now and im happy with it. just need to go about installing all my apps!

cheers
 
ive considered ext4 but i believe its not supported out of the box (for ubuntu that is) yet. theres also some other fs (brtfs or something like that) i looked at too but thats some way off isnt it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom