Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

the Graphical Install option on a Live USB SD. > > > > > > The swap partition size installed on the HD is 1 GB. > > > > > > Buster, etc., used to be about the size of memory, (8 GB in my case,) > > > for the swap partition size. > > > > >

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On January 9, 2022 3:24:18 PM Charles Curley wrote: On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 22:27:20 +0100 Marco Möller wrote: It might be difficult to start without a swap partition, but then realize over time that you need it and getting headaches from where to free space for it. Gparted, do a little file

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 22:27:20 +0100 Marco Möller wrote: > It might be difficult to start without a swap partition, but then > realize over time that you need it and getting headaches from where > to free space for it. You can always add a swap file later on. Linux will work with both a swap parti

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On Sun, 09 Jan 2022 18:57:26 +0100 Hans wrote: > Am Sonntag, 9. Januar 2022, 18:45:22 CET schrieb Tixy: > However, I believe, hibernating will use the swap partition, so I > think, it might be a good idea, to create a swap partition twice as > big as the memory, if you want to use it. > > Of cou

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On 08.01.22 17:54, John Conover wrote: I just installed Bullseye, using default "use entire disk" as the HD configuration from the Graphical Install option on a Live USB SD. The swap partition size installed on the HD is 1 GB. Buster, etc., used to be about the size of memory, (

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On January 9, 2022 10:02:21 AM Hans wrote: Am Sonntag, 9. Januar 2022, 18:45:22 CET schrieb Tixy: However, I believe, hibernating will use the swap partition, so I think, it might be a good idea, to create a swap partition twice as big as the memory, if you want to use it. Double the 64 GB

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

Am Sonntag, 9. Januar 2022, 18:45:22 CET schrieb Tixy: However, I believe, hibernating will use the swap partition, so I think, it might be a good idea, to create a swap partition twice as big as the memory, if you want to use it. Of course you can use any other partition for hibernating, but fo

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On Sun, 2022-01-09 at 18:19 +0200, Georgi Naplatanov wrote: > On 1/8/22 19:38, Tixy wrote: > > On Sat, 2022-01-08 at 19:18 +0200, Georgi Naplatanov wrote: > > [1] If I remember correct, you couldn't actually disable swap, just set > > it's size to the minimum of 4MB. > > > > > it's possible not

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On Sun 09 Jan 2022 at 10:14:41 (+), Tixy wrote: > On Sat, 2022-01-08 at 14:24 -0600, David Wright wrote: > [...] > > the alternative is running out of memory, and the OOM killer. > > Obviously I don't know what you run that clogs the system. Most of my > > machines have much less RAM than the t

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

Andrew M.A. Cater writes: > On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 08:54:43AM -0800, John Conover wrote: > > > > I just installed Bullseye, using default "use entire disk" as the HD > > configuration from the Graphical Install option on a Live USB SD. > > > > The swap

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 08:54:43AM -0800, John Conover wrote: > > I just installed Bullseye, using default "use entire disk" as the HD > configuration from the Graphical Install option on a Live USB SD. > > The swap partition size installed on the HD is 1 GB. > >

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On 1/8/22 19:38, Tixy wrote: > On Sat, 2022-01-08 at 19:18 +0200, Georgi Naplatanov wrote: > [1] If I remember correct, you couldn't actually disable swap, just set > it's size to the minimum of 4MB. > Hi Tixy, it's possible not to use swap. Debian installer (in expert mode) shows a warning if

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On Sat, 2022-01-08 at 14:24 -0600, David Wright wrote: [...] > the alternative is running out of memory, and the OOM killer. > Obviously I don't know what you run that clogs the system. Most of my > machines have much less RAM than the two mentioned, though they get > less memory-intensive use nowa

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

the Graphical Install option on a Live USB SD. > >> > >> The swap partition size installed on the HD is 1 GB. > >> > >> Buster, etc., used to be about the size of memory, (8 GB in my case,) > >> for the swap partition size. > >> > >> Is th

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On 1/8/22, Georgi Naplatanov wrote: > On 1/8/22 18:54, John Conover wrote: >> >> I just installed Bullseye, using default "use entire disk" as the HD >> configuration from the Graphical Install option on a Live USB SD. >> >> The swap partition size ins

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On Sat, 2022-01-08 at 19:18 +0200, Georgi Naplatanov wrote: > On 1/8/22 18:54, John Conover wrote: > > > > I just installed Bullseye, using default "use entire disk" as the HD > > configuration from the Graphical Install option on a Live USB SD. > > > &g

Re: Bullseye default swap partition size?

On 1/8/22 18:54, John Conover wrote: > > I just installed Bullseye, using default "use entire disk" as the HD > configuration from the Graphical Install option on a Live USB SD. > > The swap partition size installed on the HD is 1 GB. > > Buster, etc., used to be

Bullseye default swap partition size?

I just installed Bullseye, using default "use entire disk" as the HD configuration from the Graphical Install option on a Live USB SD. The swap partition size installed on the HD is 1 GB. Buster, etc., used to be about the size of memory, (8 GB in my case,) for the swap partition

Re: Buster: problem changing partition size on a RAID 5 array

On 20/08/17 10:04 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 15/08/2017 à 21:47, Gary Dale a écrit : That still sounds like a bug. If I did a DD from a smaller to a larger hard disk then used gdisk, I'd expect it to see the new drive size and handle it correctly. Gdisk does handle it correctly. It just

Re: Buster: problem changing partition size on a RAID 5 array

Le 15/08/2017 à 21:47, Gary Dale a écrit : That still sounds like a bug. If I did a DD from a smaller to a larger hard disk then used gdisk, I'd expect it to see the new drive size and handle it correctly. Gdisk does handle it correctly. It just does not correct it automatically. If you ask

Re: Buster: problem changing partition size on a RAID 5 array

and the partition size (14.6T). cat /proc/mdstat confirms that the device has all the drives running: md1 : active raid5 sdb1[0] sdh1[6] sdc1[5] sdl1[3] sdm1[2] sdk1[1] 19534430720 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 [6/6] [UU] bitmap: 0/30 pages [0KB], 65536KB

Re: Buster: problem changing partition size on a RAID 5 array

On 16/08/17 01:48 PM, Nicholas Geovanis wrote: On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Gary Dale > wrote: The reason its rare is more likely that Linux hasn't been able to boot from mdadm partitions until recently. IIRC it's been available in Debian since lenn

Re: Buster: problem changing partition size on a RAID 5 array

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Gary Dale wrote: > > The reason its rare is more likely that Linux hasn't been able to boot > from mdadm partitions until recently. IIRC it's been available in Debian since lenny in 2009. But yes, if you began using linux in, say, 1994 or so, that's "recently"...

Re: Buster: problem changing partition size on a RAID 5 array

On 14/08/17 01:58 PM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 14/08/2017 à 06:32, Gary Dale a écrit : Disk /dev/md1: 39068861440 sectors, 18.2 TiB Logical sector size: 512 bytes Disk identifier (GUID): EFF29D11-D982-4933-9B57-B836591DEF02 Partition table holds up to 128 entries First usable sector is 34, las

Re: Buster: problem changing partition size on a RAID 5 array

Le 14/08/2017 à 06:32, Gary Dale a écrit : Disk /dev/md1: 39068861440 sectors, 18.2 TiB Logical sector size: 512 bytes Disk identifier (GUID): EFF29D11-D982-4933-9B57-B836591DEF02 Partition table holds up to 128 entries First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 31255089118

Buster: problem changing partition size on a RAID 5 array

aries Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB) Number Start (sector)End (sector) Size Code Name 12048 31255089118 14.6 TiB8300 Linux filesystem As you can see, there is a discrepancy between the device size (18.2T) and the partition size (14.6T). cat

Re: mdadm increasing the partition size.

Thanks Gene and Gary and yes you got it correctly. Two steps resolved my issue. (AH) in case other may need help with same issue can follow. 1- mdadm -G /dev/md(*) -z max 2- resize2fs /dev/md(*) On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Wednesday 29 July 2015 06:30:46 Muhamm

Re: mdadm increasing the partition size.

On Wednesday 29 July 2015 06:30:46 Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote: > Dear All, > > I have 4 partitions in my /dev/sdb total size of a whole drive is 2 TB > in where main partition is of 1TB in size. > > however i want to increase this 1TB partition. therefore i added new > 3TB /dev/sda and replicated

Re: mdadm increasing the partition size.

On 29/07/15 06:30 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote: Dear All, I have 4 partitions in my /dev/sdb total size of a whole drive is 2 TB in where main partition is of 1TB in size. however i want to increase this 1TB partition. therefore i added new 3TB /dev/sda and replicated the partition tables

mdadm increasing the partition size.

Dear All, I have 4 partitions in my /dev/sdb total size of a whole drive is 2 TB in where main partition is of 1TB in size. however i want to increase this 1TB partition. therefore i added new 3TB /dev/sda and replicated the partition tables with with gdisk. which worked great. now the partitio

Re: partimage partition size

Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: Hi, I created a 20GB partition: Model: SAMSUNG HD502HJ (scsi) Disk /dev/sdb: 500GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End SizeType File system Flags 1 32.3kB 20.0GB 20.0GB primary ext2 2 20.0GB 4

Re: partimage partition size

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: > > I created a 20GB partition: > > Model: SAMSUNG HD502HJ (scsi) > Disk /dev/sdb: 500GB > Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B > Partition Table: msdos > > Number  Start   End     Size    Type     File system  Flags >  1      32.3kB  2

Re: partimage partition size

On 2011-07-12 18:31 +0200, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: > I created a 20GB partition: > [...] > Then I restored with partimage a partition to /dev/sdb2 that was > originally 13GB. > > Now df shows that /dev/sdb2 is only 13GB: Correct, this is mentioned in the FAQ (available in the partimage-doc package

Re: partimage partition size

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: > Hi, > > I created a 20GB partition: > > Model: SAMSUNG HD502HJ (scsi) > Disk /dev/sdb: 500GB > Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B > Partition Table: msdos > > Number Start End SizeType File system Flags > 1 32.

partimage partition size

Hi, I created a 20GB partition: Model: SAMSUNG HD502HJ (scsi) Disk /dev/sdb: 500GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End SizeType File system Flags 1 32.3kB 20.0GB 20.0GB primary ext2 2 20.0GB 40.0GB 20.0GB primary

Re: sofware raid does not show the full partition size on disk

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 7:48 PM, martin f krafft wrote: > Have you ever modified the partition table to increase the size of > the partition? > yes I replaced the two 40 GB Disks with 2 80GB Disks > Have you made a backup? > no > Does it work if you unmount /var and then try > >  mdadm --grow -

Re: sofware raid does not show the full partition size on disk

also sprach Siju George [2009.06.11.1556 +0200]: > mdadm -D /dev/md6 > > does not show the right size either. Have you ever modified the partition table to increase the size of the partition? If yes, then I assume you did not recreate the array then and since the superblock is stored at the end

Re: sofware raid does not show the full partition size on disk

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 7:08 PM, martin f krafft wrote: > > also sprach martin f krafft [2009.06.11.1526 +0200]: > > I assume that this is due to open file descriptors; Linux frees > > diskspace only after a file descriptor is closed, not when the file > > is unlinked from a directory. > > Sorry,

Re: sofware raid does not show the full partition size on disk

also sprach martin f krafft [2009.06.11.1526 +0200]: > I assume that this is due to open file descriptors; Linux frees > diskspace only after a file descriptor is closed, not when the file > is unlinked from a directory. Sorry, I misread. Does mdadm -D /dev/md6 reflect the right size? -- .

Re: sofware raid does not show the full partition size on disk

also sprach Siju George [2009.06.11.1511 +0200]: > ~# df -h > FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on > /dev/md2 953M 519M 435M 55% / > tmpfs 237M 0 237M 0% /lib/init/rw > tmpfs 237M 0 237M 0% /dev/shm > /dev/md1

sofware raid does not show the full partition size on disk

Hi, I have two hard disks hda and hdc. The partition sizes are as follows according to cfdisk. Disk Drive: /dev/hda Size: 80026361856 bytes, 80.0 GB Heads: 255 Sectors per Track: 63 Cylinders: 9729 NameFlags

Re: how to increase FAT partition size in extended partition?

Serena Cantor wrote: Is there any free software for doing that? Yes there is. Try gparted. It lets you do all sorts of things with your disk partitions. -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. -- Albert Einstein -- To

(solved) Re: how to increase FAT partition size in extended partition?

Thanks! I find etch has gparted. I'll try it later on. --- On Tue, 11/11/08, Umarzuki Mochlis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Umarzuki Mochlis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: how to increase FAT partition size in extended partition? > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] &g

how to increase FAT partition size in extended partition?

Is there any free software for doing that? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: maximum partition size

Am 2008-03-10 09:38:03, schrieb hce: > Hi, > > What is the maximum partition size for an external HDD? I tried to use > one partition for a 250 G external HDD for a backup, the partition was > ok, but then the format process was stuck which caused my debian box > freeze. I c

Re: maximum partition size

Am 2008-03-10 09:38:03, schrieb hce: > Hi, > > What is the maximum partition size for an external HDD? I tried to use > one partition for a 250 G external HDD for a backup, the partition was > ok, but then the format process was stuck which caused my debian box > freeze. I c

Re: maximum partition size

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/09/08 23:37, hce wrote: > On 3/10/08, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> On 03/09/08 21:22, hce wrote: >> > On 3/10/08, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>

Re: maximum partition size

On 3/10/08, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 03/09/08 21:22, hce wrote: > > On 3/10/08, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > > >> > >> Is this a Ximeta NDAS drive? Do you have the correct driver? > >> http://code

Re: maximum partition size

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/09/08 21:22, hce wrote: > On 3/10/08, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] >> >> Is this a Ximeta NDAS drive? Do you have the correct driver? >> http://code.ximeta.com/trac-ndas/wiki >> http://code.ximeta.com/trac-ndas/wiki/HowToBuil

Re: maximum partition size

ash: SHA1 > >> > >> > >> On 03/09/08 17:38, hce wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > What is the maximum partition size for an external HDD? I tried to use > >> > >> > >> The location of the drive is irrele

Re: maximum partition size

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/09/08 18:49, hce wrote: > On 3/10/08, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> On 03/09/08 17:38, hce wrote: >> > Hi, >> >

Re: maximum partition size

On 3/10/08, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 03/09/08 17:38, hce wrote: > > Hi, > > > > What is the maximum partition size for an external HDD? I tried to use > > > The location of

Re: maximum partition size

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/09/08 17:38, hce wrote: > Hi, > > What is the maximum partition size for an external HDD? I tried to use The location of the drive is irrelevant. > one partition for a 250 G external HDD for a backup, the partition was Bigge

maximum partition size

Hi, What is the maximum partition size for an external HDD? I tried to use one partition for a 250 G external HDD for a backup, the partition was ok, but then the format process was stuck which caused my debian box freeze. I cannot even turn my debian box off. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

Tyler Smith wrote: > On 2008-02-22, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Are you aware that you can resize your partitions non destructively using >> something like qtparted? First backup all your data before you do >> anything like this. This is what I did when I found out that

Re: hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

Jimmy Wu wrote: > I always thought resizing or doing any partition editing carried some > risk of losing data (ie no guarantees), but perhaps ext3 is different. > The "no guarantees" disclaimer goes with pretty much all of the GPL software. The users always have to make backups. No software is 1

Re: hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Jimmy Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just as an experiment, I did a sudo hibernate -v3 > hibernate.out, and > it says that it was unable to unload nvidia and aborts hibernation > (see attached file). So I guess pm-hibernate kind of went ahead and > shut down

Re: hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

On 2008-02-22, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are you aware that you can resize your partitions non destructively using > something like qtparted? First backup all your data before you do anything > like this. This is what I did when I found out that my RAM size is larger > th

Re: hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jimmy Wu wrote: > > >>From what I've read online, I get the general idea that in order to be > > able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has to > > be big enough to hold all of the RAM insi

Re: hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Chris Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is High memory support turned on in the kernel? This could explain why > hibernation is working whilst you have 2gig's in the system. > > Processor type and features > -> High Memory Support > I remember seeing suc

Re: hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

Jimmy Wu wrote: >>From what I've read online, I get the general idea that in order to be > able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has to > be big enough to hold all of the RAM inside it, right? > > Is it possible to hibernate if my swap partition is smaller than my > RAM?

Re: hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

On 22/02/2008, Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jimmy Wu wrote: > > From what I've read online, I get the general idea that in order to be > > able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has to > > be big enough to hold all of the RAM inside it, right? > > > > Is it p

Re: hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

Jimmy Wu wrote: > From what I've read online, I get the general idea that in order to be > able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has to > be big enough to hold all of the RAM inside it, right? > > Is it possible to hibernate if my swap partition is smaller than my > RAM? I

Re: hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

Is High memory support turned on in the kernel? This could explain why hibernation is working whilst you have 2gig's in the system. Processor type and features -> High Memory Support On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Jimmy Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:07

Re: hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Jimmy Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Rich Healey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > > Jimmy Wu wrote: > > >>From what I've read online, I get the general idea that in order to be > > > able to hibernate/suspend to disk p

Re: hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Rich Healey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Jimmy Wu wrote: > >>From what I've read online, I get the general idea that in order to be > > able to hibernate/suspend to disk properly, the swap partition has to > > be big enough to hold all of the RAM inside i

hibernate and swap partition size (newbie question)

it back on, and the computer got past grub, saw the saved file, and began resuming from it. After that though, all I got was a black screen and a bunch of beeps. I ended up having to force a reboot with Alt+SysRq. I am trying to figure out if my swap partition size has anything to do with it. I

Re: Increasing Partition size.

On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:15:08PM +1000, Michael Bellears wrote: > We are in the process of testing our own NAS box (Compaq with Smart > Array 6400). > > The Compaq box has a capacity of 14 Hotswap HD's - but due to budget > restraints, we have initially only purchased 5 drives. > > Current data

Re: Increasing Partition size.

Hello, Michael! On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:15:08PM +1000, Michael Bellears wrote: > The above method does not fill me with confidence - Especially once the > NAS is in production...maybe it's just me, but deleting a partition > scares the bejesus out of me! There's nothing wrong with this, if you

Increasing Partition size.

We are in the process of testing our own NAS box (Compaq with Smart Array 6400). The Compaq box has a capacity of 14 Hotswap HD's - but due to budget restraints, we have initially only purchased 5 drives. Current data partition is ~409Gb - but we will be wanting to add additional storage(To the d

Re: Partition size discrepancy df v parted/cfdisk -SOLVED

On (22/01/04 19:55), Paul Morgan wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:57:44 +, Clive Menzies wrote: > > On (22/01/04 14:31), Paul Morgan wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:05:01 +, Clive Menzies wrote: > >> > I've just reorganised the partitions on a second (Seagate) drive in > >> > a dual booti

Re: Partition size discrepancy df v parted/cfdisk

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:57:44 +, Clive Menzies wrote: > On (22/01/04 14:31), Paul Morgan wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:05:01 +, Clive Menzies wrote: >> > I've just reorganised the partitions on a second (Seagate) drive in >> > a dual booting Dell Dimension XPS T500 to give more room to /

Re: Partition size discrepancy df v parted/cfdisk

On (22/01/04 14:31), Paul Morgan wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:05:01 +, Clive Menzies wrote: > > I've just reorganised the partitions on a second (Seagate) drive in > > a dual booting Dell Dimension XPS T500 to give more room to /usr > > (to upgrade from woody to sid). > > > > The partition

Re: Partition size discrepancy df v parted/cfdisk

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:05:01 +, Clive Menzies wrote: > Hi List > > I've just reorganised the partitions on a second (Seagate) drive in > a dual booting Dell Dimension XPS T500 to give more room to /usr > (to upgrade from woody to sid). > > The partitions I messed with were /home, /usr and t

Partition size discrepancy df v parted/cfdisk

Hi List I've just reorganised the partitions on a second (Seagate) drive in a dual booting Dell Dimension XPS T500 to give more room to /usr (to upgrade from woody to sid). The partitions I messed with were /home, /usr and two swap. /home was 35 Gb and /usr 1Gb Using parted I deleted home and

Re: Re: df reports negative partition size

t; /dev/hda3 -3233790934511k 1.0k 0.0k 11% / > > If i do a cat /proc/partitions I get > debian:~/tmp$ cat /proc/partitions > major minor #blocks name > > 3 0 12714912 hda > 3 1 24066 hda1 > 3 2 136552 hda2 > 3 3 12546765 hda3 > > An ideas why df is reporting a neg

Re: df reports negative partition size

14912 hda 3 1 24066 hda1 3 2 136552 hda2 3 3 12546765 hda3 An ideas why df is reporting a negative partition size? Actually this is only the symptom of my real problem. I tried to install a JDK 1.4 from Sun. Although there sould be somme gigabytes of free diskspace, it's reporting, that t

df reports negative partition size

24066 hda1 3 2 136552 hda2 3 3 12546765 hda3 An ideas why df is reporting a negative partition size? Actually this is only the symptom of my real problem. I tried to install a JDK 1.4 from Sun. Although there sould be somme gigabytes of free diskspace, it's reporting, that there's

Re: disk partitioning & partition size allocations

David: replying to you and list in event you've given up on us... on Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:58:38PM -0800, David W. Jensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I have been a telecommunications technician for many years & worked on > the perifery of the data world over many years. I have got about 8 > b

disk partitioning & partition size allocations

I have been a telecommunications technician for many years & worked on the perifery of the data world over many years. I have got about 8 books on Linux and have loosely studied this OS for about 3 years. But I am certainly a newbie.So far I have not found a good general reference about par

Re: Partition size

On Wednesday 04 December 2002 07:15, Rob Weir wrote: > X has to know about poer events, since it will have to re-initialise > your video hardware when your machine wakes up again. Thanx, that X tells me about such events, where it is actively doing something as important as re-initialising my har

Re: Partition size

On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 01:47:37PM +0100, Michael Naumann wrote: > and -o noatime will only block writing "inode access times". True, it's not the solution the XFree86 problem, but it does seem to be an important flag for laptops. > But once I found out how to stop X from repeatedly telling me th

Re: Partition size

Chris Tillman wrote: > > I have had no problems with ext3 either, nor have I heard of anyone > having problems, nor is there any bugs open in e2fsprogs. Should we > just flatly recommend ext3 in the manual? Or maybe something like > > Index: partitioning.sgml > ===

Re: Partition size

On Friday 29 November 2002 03:24, Matthias Szupryczynski wrote: > On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 05:40, Michael Naumann wrote: > > For this very reason, I have ext2. But gkrellm shows me small write > > peaks every other second. I figured out, that /var/log/XFree86.0.log > > gets filled with > > (II) PM Eve

Re: Partition size

On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 05:40, Michael Naumann wrote: > For this very reason, I have ext2. But gkrellm shows me small write > peaks every other second. I figured out, that /var/log/XFree86.0.log > gets filled with > (II) PM Event received: Power Status Change > > I asked some days ago in a separate

Re: Partition size

Once upon a time Pigeon said... > On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:16:11 +, Chris Lale > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >One of my partitions is 8Gb and I have noticed exactly this behaviour. > >It also takes aeons to mount during boot. Do you think I should convert > >all my partions to ext3, or just

Re: Partition size

On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:16:11 +, Chris Lale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Thanks Colin. > >Colin Watson wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:10:00PM +, Chris Lale wrote: >>> >>>I read in the Debian installation manual (v.3.0.24, 24th May 2002 >>>section 6.4) that partitions greater than about

Re: Partition size

On Thursday 28 November 2002 19:06, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:52:14AM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote: > > > I have had no problems with ext3 either, nor have I heard of anyone > > having problems, nor is there any bugs open in e2fsprogs. Should we > > just flatly recommend ext3

Re: Partition size

On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:52:14AM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote: > I have had no problems with ext3 either, nor have I heard of anyone > having problems, nor is there any bugs open in e2fsprogs. Should we > just flatly recommend ext3 in the manual? Or maybe something like One issue with ext3 (unl

Re: Partition size

On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 02:50:19PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:16:11AM +, Chris Lale wrote: > > Colin Watson wrote: > > >On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:10:00PM +, Chris Lale wrote: > > >>I read in the Debian installation manual (v.3.0.24, 24th May 2002 > > >>section

Re: Partition size

On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:16:11AM +, Chris Lale wrote: > Colin Watson wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:10:00PM +, Chris Lale wrote: > >>I read in the Debian installation manual (v.3.0.24, 24th May 2002 > >>section 6.4) that partitions greater than about 6Gb should be avoided. > >>Does

Re: Partition size

Thanks Colin. Colin Watson wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:10:00PM +, Chris Lale wrote: I read in the Debian installation manual (v.3.0.24, 24th May 2002 section 6.4) that partitions greater than about 6Gb should be avoided. Does anyone know if this true? If so, why? They're a bit of

Re: Partition size

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:58:22 +, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:10:00PM +, Chris Lale wrote: >> Mark L. Kahnt wrote: >> I read in the Debian installation manual (v.3.0.24, 24th May 2002 >> section 6.4) that partitions greater than about 6Gb should be avo

Re: Partition size

- Original Message - From: "Richard Hector" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Debian-User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Partition size > On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 10:43, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > > On Wed, 2002-11-

Re: Partition size

On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 12:52, Mike Dresser wrote: > On 28 Nov 2002, Richard Hector wrote: > > > You could use the linear version, where you just concatenate the > > partitions together. That shouldn't take any longer to seek over than > > one big one - each byte is still only in one place. > > > >

Re: Partition size

On 28 Nov 2002, Richard Hector wrote: > You could use the linear version, where you just concatenate the > partitions together. That shouldn't take any longer to seek over than > one big one - each byte is still only in one place. > > Richard Well, wouldn't the raid partition be bigger than 6 gig

Re: Partition size

On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 10:43, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 16:39, Mike Dresser wrote: > > On 27 Nov 2002, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > > > > > rather than Linux itself. That said, do you split it into several > > > partitions and use RAID on them - I can't see that as providing a hint > >

Re: Partition size

On 27 Nov 2002, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > Yes - that was the point I was seeking to make - if we shouldn't go over > 6 GB/partition, how the heck are we ever going to use the bulk of these > 80GB+ drives on the market? ;) 13 partitions? :D Oooh, that's a real lucky number there! Out of curiosity,

Re: Partition size

On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 16:39, Mike Dresser wrote: > On 27 Nov 2002, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > > > rather than Linux itself. That said, do you split it into several > > partitions and use RAID on them - I can't see that as providing a hint > > of a fraction of the actual disk operation performance ;) >

Re: Partition size

On 27 Nov 2002, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > rather than Linux itself. That said, do you split it into several > partitions and use RAID on them - I can't see that as providing a hint > of a fraction of the actual disk operation performance ;) Erm, raid on the same drive? I guess if you had a bad sect

  1   2   >