Re: Optimum partition sizes for RH 5.0 on 1.6G drive

[Donovan Rebbechi <elflord pegasus rutgers edu>]

On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, David Stern wrote:

> > I have a trusty old 1.6G drive and partitioned it:
> > 
> > swap       100    (I have 64 MB physical memory)

seems very big. I have 32MB physical, and 64 MB swap, but I never see more
than 8MB of my swap used.B

> > /          80 
> > /usr       600 

depends on what kind of applications you're going to install. If you want
to install something like Applix , then this looks fairly tight (what I
used to have. It worked, but I pushed the limits). Unless
you make /usr/local a little bigger.

> > /home      200

depends on how many users you have. But looks reasonable

> > /usr/local 200

depends on how big /usr is. 

> > /usr/src   200

> > /tmp       200
 
way too big. If your /tmp gets too large, you should delete some files.

Another thing: what I do is rather than have /var under the root file
system, which is the way you appear to have it set up, I prefer to have a
partition for /var and keep /tmp in the /var partition (by making /tmp a
link to /var/tmp). This is because /var stores a lot of files that can
rapidly change size (that's why it's called /var ... ) such as logfiles.
It's probably a good idea to seperate your / partition from this. I have
60 MB for /var , (which includes /tmp). 

Conclusions ? I would use /var instead of /tmp, and make it 60 MB
instead of 200 , and reduce your swap partition to 32 MB , you'd have the
same amount of available memory as me (with a higher proportion of
physical). I never come close to exhausting swap, not even during kernel
building. Then I'd distribute the newly discovered 208 MB between /home,
/usr and /usr/local , depending on whether you'd like more space for your
files or more space for applications. I'd be more tempted to lean towards
/usr and /usr/local (it's more convenient to retrieve files from
removable media than it is to do so with applications).

Just my $0.02

-- Donovan