On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > but ... if "/tmp" accidentally mounted under root fs instead of separate
> > partition, than i consider the box as having gone bonkers and "not
> > working right"
>
> There's "not working right" (in which case I agree), and there's "not
> working
on Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:32:26PM -0800, Alvin Oga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Karsten M. Self wrote:
You left off full attributions:
> > Alvin Oga wrote:
> > > if /tmp is a separate partition and it cannot mount it during bootup,
> > > nothing will work right if the ap
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > I was thinking about this idea, so /tmp is on raid. Now temp dies, and you
> > > reboot, and now apache won't start?
> >
> >
> > if /tmp is a separate partition and it cannot mount it during bootup,
> > nothing will work right if the app depend
on Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 01:07:47AM -0800, Alvin Oga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Lucas Albers wrote:
>
> > >
> > > hi ya andrew
> > > raid can break due to:
> > > - (1) disk failures
> > > - the silly system takes forever ( dayz ) to resync itself
> > > - too many
Alvin Oga said:
>> I was hoping reiser could give me better redundancy.
>
> supposed to be better
> - i assume yoy dont mean "redundancy" but that you dont
> want to wait around for fsck checks of the fs after
> accidental or silly or testing power off
>
> xfs or jfs supposed to
whatup alvin,
Alvin Oga said:
>> I think I'm just going to put spare backup disk in the system.
>
> usually simpler to use 1 disk for spare.. as long as everythng
> fit and you dont have to worry about any config errors
>
>> >> I've found that some volumes just break sync,
>> I have a raid 5 parti
Karsten M. Self said:
> However, reiserfs (as other journaled filesystems) *does* require
> storage space for the journal file. Which on a smallish root filesystem
> takes up a significant amount of space (32 MiB, IIRC, for reiserfs).
> Reiser uses a fixed size journal file, while ext3's is eithe
on Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 01:48:45AM -0700, Lucas Albers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:38:50PM +1000, Braxton Neate
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >> I'm wondering what other people would recommend in the way of
> >> partitioning?
> >>
> > http://kmself.home.netco
on Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 01:54:28AM -0700, Lucas Albers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > See generally my guide previously posted.
> >
> > Use LVM.
> >
> this guide:
> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Linux/FAQs/partition.html
>
> Mentions that you should not use reiserfs as your boot partition?
Note t
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Lucas Albers wrote:
>
> Alvin Oga said:
> > reiserfs-3.6 w/ linux-2.4.23 seems to work fine ( normally ) now for
> > / and lilo and everything else ( using it daily )
> > prior versions/combinations i tried failed miserably
> Have you notices any corruption using reise
hi ya lucas
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Lucas Albers wrote:
> What I meant, was if it is a partition size the resync will occur faster
> then if it is a giant partition size.
makes no difference ... "100GB of data to sync" is 100GB of data
no matter how small ..
but if you spread 100GB to 20GB each
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Lucas Albers wrote:
> Mentions that you should not use reiserfs as your boot partition?
> Can you extrapolate, I've used reiserfs as my boot partiton with no
> problems, and would be interested in what you have encountered:
>
> "The only significant consideration here was t
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Lucas Albers wrote:
> >
> > hi ya andrew
> > raid can break due to:
> > - (1) disk failures
> > - the silly system takes forever ( dayz ) to resync itself
> > - too many disks failures renders the entire raid useless
> > or the system can be on a non-raided d
Alvin Oga said:
> reiserfs-3.6 w/ linux-2.4.23 seems to work fine ( normally ) now for
> / and lilo and everything else ( using it daily )
> prior versions/combinations i tried failed miserably
Have you notices any corruption using reiserfs, does it sync a lot faster
on reboots compared to
Alvin Oga said:
>> I've decided to start making my raid
>> syncs into smaller sizes, so they can resync back faster.
>
> the size of the "raid" has NOTHING to do with "resync" faster in general
>
> the number of files and data that have to be sync between the
> degraded raid and the newly inserte
> See generally my guide previously posted.
>
> Use LVM.
>
this guide:
http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Linux/FAQs/partition.html
Mentions that you should not use reiserfs as your boot partition?
Can you extrapolate, I've used reiserfs as my boot partiton with no
problems, and would be interested in
> on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:38:50PM +1000, Braxton Neate
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> I'm wondering what other people would recommend in the way of
>> partitioning?
>>
> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Linux/FAQs/partition.html
You mentioned thus their:
"Mount options typically restrict fe
>
> hi ya andrew
> raid can break due to:
> - (1) disk failures
> - the silly system takes forever ( dayz ) to resync itself
> - too many disks failures renders the entire raid useless
> or the system can be on a non-raided disk and raid5 for data only
> - have
on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:46:38AM +0100, Magnus von Koeller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Wednesday 17 December 2003 00:55, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > in the old days ?memory was say 4K total ...
>
> Yeah, I was just wondering because on my laptop, complete with
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bijan Soleymani writes:
>> Many programs are huge but only small parts of them need to be in memory
>> the rest can be maintained in swap.
>
> Executables are not swapped out. They don't need to be because they are
> not altered and so can just be read ba
on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 10:23:50PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Tuesday 16 December 2003 22:12, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > SWAP - 1.5GB
> >
> > Rule of thumb: ?1-2x RAM.
>
> I never understood that rule... In what way does it make sen
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Nate Duehr wrote:
> > and if one uses lots of memory space ...
> > one should patch the kernel for "bigmem" support too
> >
> > hehehe ... sorry.. couldn't resist
>
> Uhhh... isn't that what I said? ;-)
i donno, i always thought that turning on 4GB or 64GB was
different th
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 00:55, Alvin Oga wrote:
> in the old days memory was say 4K total ...
Yeah, I was just wondering because on my laptop, complete with KDE
desktop and tons of programs running and all, 512MB RAM and something
like 270MB of swap, my swap is 99% free. I'm not sugg
On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 20:02 America/Denver, Alvin Oga wrote:
and if one uses lots of memory space ...
one should patch the kernel for "bigmem" support too
hehehe ... sorry.. couldn't resist
Uhhh... isn't that what I said? ;-)
Man, must be tired tonight...
Nate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
hi ya nate
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 17:10 America/Denver, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > ( if one has 4GB of memory, in a large PC, does that mean
> > ( we need 8GB of swap ?? ... nah.. not many apps need that
> > ( much memory other that oracle and
On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 17:10 America/Denver, Alvin Oga wrote:
( if one has 4GB of memory, in a large PC, does that mean
( we need 8GB of swap ?? ... nah.. not many apps need that
( much memory other that oracle and cae/cad simulations
( and bunch of special app
On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 16:23 America/Denver, Braxton Neate wrote:
SWAP1 - 1GB
SWAP2 - 1GB
Apparently the kernel can balance loads between 2 swap partitions like
it can with multiple processors, so it would make sense to have 2 1GB
partitions rather than a 1 2GB partition. However this machine
On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 14:23 America/Denver, Magnus von Koeller
wrote:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 22:12, Karsten M. Self wrote:
SWAP - 1.5GB
Rule of thumb: 1-2x RAM.
I never understood that rule... In what way does it make sense that I
need more swap because I have more RAM? Seriously, I'
Bijan Soleymani writes:
> Many programs are huge but only small parts of them need to be in memory
> the rest can be maintained in swap.
Executables are not swapped out. They don't need to be because they are
not altered and so can just be read back in from disk.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:55:27PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> 30 years later, its easier/cheaper to just add a new stick of memory
> - having "some swap" prevents your system from doing a
> random self-reboot or hanging forever whenever it runs out
> of "virtual memory"
Don't know
hda5?
>
> Thanks for everyone's replies!
>
> -Braxton
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: David Z Maze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 December 2003 1:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Web server Partitions
>
>
> "Br
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 December 2003 22:12, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > SWAP - 1.5GB
> >
> > Rule of thumb: 1-2x RAM.
>
> I never understood that rule... In what way does it make sense that I
> need more swap because I have more RAM? Seriously, I'd rea
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Braxton Neate wrote:
> After pondering a few reply's I'm thinking of the following:
> /boot - 50MB
geez .. that should give you room for about 20-25 kernels
> / - 23GB (remembering that /usr & /home etc. will be directory's
> underneath this)
hummm ... you're asking for t
Z Maze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 December 2003 1:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Web server Partitions
"Braxton Neate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know this is a question that gets asked a lot, but googling around I
> can't seem to f
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 10:23:50PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Tuesday 16 December 2003 22:12, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > SWAP - 1.5GB
> >
> > Rule of thumb: ?1-2x RAM.
>
> I never understood that rule... In what way does it make sense that I
> need mo
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 22:12, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > SWAP - 1.5GB
>
> Rule of thumb: 1-2x RAM.
I never understood that rule... In what way does it make sense that I
need more swap because I have more RAM? Seriously, I'd really like to
understand this.
--
--- Magnus von Koeller ---
e
See generally my guide previously posted.
on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:52:54PM +1000, Braxton Neate ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I currently have 1GB of swap space which seams sufficient, 2GB seems a
> bit excessive. I was told that the rule of thumb is double the amount of
> physical RAM.
>
> My
on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:38:50PM +1000, Braxton Neate ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> I know this is a question that gets asked a lot, but googling around I
> can't seem to find a good answer.
> I'm re-installing a web/sql server which currently has one large root
> partition and a sw
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 05:35 am, Edward Murrell wrote:
> the IMAP servers (something I wish I'd actually thought about). Most
> people have shell access, but few use it.
Perhaps you should disable their shells (set 'em to /bin/false or
whatever you like) but leave their user accounts? Just
hi ya andrew
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Andrew Malcolmson wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:12:08 +1300, Edward Murrell wrote:
>
> > The first thing I'd look at doing is moving the default webpage to a
> [ Edward's advice on partitioning the web server}
>
> I also have a server with 6 SCSI drives and
Incoming from Alvin Oga:
>
> > /var - 10GB
>
> if you want to save weblogs, you can move it to /home
> since "users" want that info
>
> system use very little space in /var
... exception being /var/cache/apt/archives. That can be a symlink to
somewhere else though.
--
Any technology distin
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:12:08 +1300, Edward Murrell wrote:
> The first thing I'd look at doing is moving the default webpage to a
[ Edward's advice on partitioning the web server}
I also have a server with 6 SCSI drives and a hardware RAID controller. It
will be a web server initially but eventual
"Braxton Neate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know this is a question that gets asked a lot, but googling around
> I can't seem to find a good answer. I'm re-installing a web/sql
> server which currently has one large root partition and a swap
> partition. This is obviously not the best setup.
hi ya braxton
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Braxton Neate wrote:
> My main concern is running out of space in a partition once everything
> is setup and running. So I want to be sure before I go ahead. It's a
..
there are many different partition schools of thought ...
http://www.Linux-1U.net/
> With that in mind, I would divy up your drive as follows
> (the following assumes that the server doesn't have any major mail
> server roles (/var/), that /usr/local/ will be free of anything major,
> that there's no NFS mounting, and that the server will run a database
> that will keep things so
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Web server Partitions
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 16:38, Braxton Neate wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> I know this is a question that gets asked a lot, but googling around I
> can't seem to find a good answer. I'm re-installing a web/sql server
> which
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 16:38, Braxton Neate wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> I know this is a question that gets asked a lot, but googling around I
> can't seem to find a good answer.
> I'm re-installing a web/sql server which currently has one large root
> partition and a swap partition.
> This is obviously
47 matches
Mail list logo
