default partition scheme without /home - why ?

[Duane Clark]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> Duane Clark wrote:
>> Felix Miata wrote:
>>> I think most users of disks more than a little under 20G would 
>>> ultimately be
>>> unhappy with that. I think I'd skip separate /home if HD size less 
>>> than 19G.
>>> So, something like this:
>>>
>>> less than 19G -> up to 1G swap, balance /
>>> 19G-35G -> 8G /, up to 2G swap, balance /home
>>> more than 35G -> 12G /, up to 4G swap, balance /home
>>>
>> I would go way beyond that. Don't users install additional applications? 
>> I have more than 30GB of applications installed, though I will admit 
>> that is probably far from typical. I think for under 80GB of space, it 
>> should be a single partition. Over that, if you are going to go for this 
>> crazy scheme ;), make / at least 20G.
> 
> I'd split at around 40G, with 20 for /.

I think that some users are going to file up their /home with DVD/music 
downloads, and then grumble about the unused space on /.

>> However, as a user, I can say that I will always use a single partition 
>> (as I have been doing since my HPUX and Solaris days).
> 
> How do you preserve your /home files when you upgrade?  If you have a 
> spare machine with lots of space to rsync back and forth or some other 
> quick backup mechanism it's not a big deal, but not everyone has that.

I upgrade infrequently (I went from FC4 to F7, skipping everything in 
between), and generally just buy a new disk for the new OS. I see disks 
as cheap, though I agree not everyone thinks that. I stick both disks in 
the computer, copy over what I want, and leave it there for a few weeks, 
until I am satisfied that everything on the new OS is the way I like it.