dated the other drive too (and thanks to mv and LVM, and
having 2 drives, did most all of that live).
I'd also strongly suggest, for backwards compatibility, also include a
BIOS partition too (takes only very small bit of space).
Anyway, this is what I've got (partitions quite matched
On 28.05.2025 00:11, Joe wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 22:14:03 +0500
"Alexander V. Makartsev" wrote:
On 24.05.2025 22:40, Joe wrote:
Looks like you need to shrink lvm a bit. EFI needs a partition
formatted to one of the FAT family filesystems, with no additional
software needed to acc
Joe composed on 2025-05-27 20:11 (UTC+0100):
> The points to consider are that nobody knows what /boot/efi might need
> to contain in the future, in addition to the current files, and given
> modern drive sizes, the odd GB here or there is a rounding error. If
> you reach the point where 900MB les
On Tue, 27 May 2025 22:14:03 +0500
"Alexander V. Makartsev" wrote:
> On 24.05.2025 22:40, Joe wrote:
> > Looks like you need to shrink lvm a bit. EFI needs a partition
> > formatted to one of the FAT family filesystems, with no additional
> > software needed to
On 24.05.2025 22:40, Joe wrote:
Looks like you need to shrink lvm a bit. EFI needs a partition
formatted to one of the FAT family filesystems, with no additional
software needed to access it, so no encryption or LVM. The size
recommendation for Linux is 1GB minimum. It's generally advis
lör 2025-05-24 klockan 17:59 + skrev Andy Smith:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 03:31:03PM +0200, Tommy Berglund wrote:
> > Is it possible to add an EFI system partition to a server already
> > running Debian 12?
>
>
> So, you're going to have to
On 5/24/25 06:31, Tommy Berglund wrote:
Hi,
Translated by Google from Swedish
Is it possible to add an EFI system partition to a server already
running Debian 12?
How do I do it?
(parted) print devices
/dev/sda (2000GB)
/dev/sdb (2000GB)
/dev/mapper/vg-data (1888GB)
/dev/mapper/vg-www (4295MB
Hi,
On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 03:31:03PM +0200, Tommy Berglund wrote:
> Is it possible to add an EFI system partition to a server already
> running Debian 12?
The other reply you got covers making an ESP partition, but your main
problem is going to be that you also need to install grub in EF
On Sat, 24 May 2025 15:31:03 +0200
Tommy Berglund wrote:
> Hi,
> Translated by Google from Swedish
>
> Is it possible to add an EFI system partition to a server already
> running Debian 12?
> How do I do it?
>
> (parted) print devices
> /dev/sda (2000GB)
> /dev
Hi,
Translated by Google from Swedish
Is it possible to add an EFI system partition to a server already
running Debian 12?
How do I do it?
(parted) print devices
/dev/sda (2000GB)
/dev/sdb (2000GB)
/dev/mapper/vg-data (1888GB)
/dev/mapper/vg-www (4295MB)
/dev/mapper/vg-vmail (10,7GB)
/dev/mapper
On 2/3/25 23:39, Automætic wrote:
Hi,
I'm configuring a new Debian installation on my workstation, with both the
/boot partition and the root filesystem encrypted:
- /dev/nvme0n1p1 -> /EFI
- /dev/nvme0n1p2 -> LUKS2 (pbkdf2) -> /boot
- /dev/nvme0n1p3 -> LUKS2 -> LVM conta
On 2025-02-03, Automætic wrote:
> Both devices are properly configured in /etc/crypttab with the UUIDs
> for /dev/nvme0n1p2 and /dev/nvme0n1p3 respectively (as outputted by
> blkid).
You set this manually ?
> I checked the initramfs contents using 'unmkinitramfs' in
> /tmp/initramfs/ to review m
n on my workstation, with both
> > > the /boot partition and the root filesystem encrypted:
> > > - /dev/nvme0n1p1 -> /EFI
> > > - /dev/nvme0n1p2 -> LUKS2 (pbkdf2) -> /boot
> > > - /dev/nvme0n1p3 -> LUKS2 -> LVM containing root and other volumes
&
On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 12:18:10AM -0800, Loren M. Lang wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:39:25PM +, Automætic wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm configuring a new Debian installation on my workstation, with both the
> > /boot partition and the root filesystem
On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:39:25PM +, Automætic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm configuring a new Debian installation on my workstation, with both the
> /boot partition and the root filesystem encrypted:
> - /dev/nvme0n1p1 -> /EFI
> - /dev/nvme0n1p2 -> LUKS2 (pbkdf2
Hello,
From what I understand, a year ago, grub2 upstream LUKS2 support was
still only initial and thus not complete:
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55093
So it still probably better to stick with LUKS1 for /boot for now
Hi,
I'm configuring a new Debian installation on my workstation, with both the
/boot partition and the root filesystem encrypted:
- /dev/nvme0n1p1 -> /EFI
- /dev/nvme0n1p2 -> LUKS2 (pbkdf2) -> /boot
- /dev/nvme0n1p3 -> LUKS2 -> LVM containing root and other volumes
T
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:06:34 +0100
Hans wrote:
> > "It shows" ??? What shows? How?
>
> See:
>
> root@protheus3:~# ls -la /boot/efi/
> insgesamt 7
> drwx-- 4 root root 1024 1. Jan 1970 .
> drwxrwxrwx 5 root root 4096 19. Jan 20:28 ..
> drwx-- 5 root root 1024 18. Jan 12:10 EFI
> d
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:44:25 -0500
Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
>
> Lastly, there's that efibootmgr package. I installed it while battling
> my past fails but never used it. I've seen it mentioned here at
> Debian- User so someone here likely knows if and/or how it might help
> somehow.
>
>
You pr
uestions:
>
> 1. Is the folder /efi correct and who is creating it?
I _thought_ the Debian Installer creates /boot/efi for UEFI systems,
and makes it 500 MB or so. Also see
<https://wiki.debian.org/UEFI#EFI_System_Partition_.28ESP.29_recommended_size>.
100 MB looks small to me. I was b
Hi folks,
rethinking and some checks showed me the solution.
In /etc I found a file "fstab.boot.readonly" with the same content as fstab. I
suppose, this file was also read during boot and as there was an entry for efi
missing, it might create one. Not sure about it!
Moving any fstab.* to ano
umask=0077 0 1
> For example, the output I show confirms that the correct partition is
> mounted on /boot/efi.
>
> > But I also find the directory
> >
> > /efi
> >
> > which has the same content as /boot/efi. It shows, both are the same.
>
Hans wrote:
>
> See, what I mean? /dev/nvme0n1p1 is mounted twice! But df does not show it!
> That looks strange for me.
This isn't strange, this is intended.
Read the df manual and look for the -a option:
"include pseudo, duplicate, inaccessible file systems"
Best regards,
Kl
Here is another clue, please see:
df
Dateisystem 1K-Blöcke Benutzt Verfügbar Verw% Eingehängt
auf
udev 8058456 0 80584560% /dev
tmpfs 1618552 2620 16159321% /run
/dev/nvme0n1p71904648
ee if that catches any substantial variance. Theoretically, it
seems like there should be zero difference.
Another thing I do is run "mount" to verify that my system is obeying my
/etc/fstab entry. It's also how I frequently, quickly check which
primary partition I'm working
93M 5.9M 87M 7% /boot/efi
root@peregrine:~#
For example, the output I show confirms that the correct partition is
mounted on /boot/efi.
> But I also find the directory
>
> /efi
>
> which has the same content as /boot/efi. It shows, both are the same.
"It shows"
Hans composed on 2025-01-22 14:20 (UTC+0100):
> I am using UEFI now for the first time. Everything is worḱing fine, but I do
> not understand
> everything. Please allow me to ask:
> 1. In /etc/fstab there is my entry
> UUID=5ABD-D634 /boot/efi vfatumask=0077 0 1
> and df
Hi folks,
I am using UEFI now for the first time. Everything is worḱing fine, but I do
not understand
everything. Please allow me to ask:
1. In /etc/fstab there is my entry
UUID=5ABD-D634 /boot/efi vfatumask=0077 0 1
and df -h shows
/dev/nvme0n1p1 96M
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 11:51 AM Nicolas George wrote:
>
> [...]
> > EFI files are signed
> > for Secure Boot, so vendor paths can not be easily adjusted.
>
> Secure boot is a joke when it comes to security, its only “merit” is to
> prevent l
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 03:17:02PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
>
> Then there is the fact that the LTS team can and does mark packages
> as unsupportable for the lifetime of LTS when they need to, so just
> because LTS team exists doesn't mean they can get around to
> supporting 32-bit x86 installer/
Max Nikulin (12024-08-20):
> Single EFI System Partition may contain loaders from different vendors, but
> not 2 Debian systems installed on different partitions.
This is not true. The only problem you will have with this setup is that
you will need to install and/or configure the boot
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 05:17:43PM CEST, Max Nikulin said:
> On 20/08/2024 11:27, David Christensen wrote:
> > AIUI UEFI/GPT were designed to support multi-boot
>
> Single EFI System Partition may contain loaders from different vendors, but
> not 2 Debian systems inst
On 20/08/2024 11:27, David Christensen wrote:
AIUI UEFI/GPT were designed to support multi-boot
Single EFI System Partition may contain loaders from different vendors,
but not 2 Debian systems installed on different partitions. EFI files
are signed for Secure Boot, so vendor paths can not be
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 03:44:03AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 08/19/2024 02:51 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
> > [32-bit x86] as previously mentioned has a single digit of years
> > of remaining lifetime in Debian.
>
> I don't see anything on https://wiki.debian.org/LTS that implies shorter
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 07:34:33 -0500
Richard Owlett wrote:
> > 5.1.13. Baseline for 32-bit PC is now i686¶
> >
> > Debian's support for 32-bit PC (known as the Debian architecture
> > i386) now no longer covers any i586 processor. The new minimum
> > requirement is i686. This means that the i386 a
On 08/20/2024 05:45 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 08/20/2024 04:30 AM, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
[snip]
There will be non i386 installer medium for Trixie when released though
i386 will be retained as a release architecture.
Can you point me to the details. I have two i386 I wish to use as long
You mean there are others like me out there? *ROFL*
4. other installs with strong project dependencies
Dependencies can indeed get out of hand sometimes.
I wasn't speaking of "software dependencies". For different projects I want
different "working environments
>
> > >4. other installs with strong project dependencies
> >
> > Dependencies can indeed get out of hand sometimes.
>
> I wasn't speaking of "software dependencies". For different projects I want
> different "working environments".
&
ners or VMs for the projects with a lot
of dependencies. But I appreciate it's a lot to get stuck into.
I looked into VMs long ago. For my style - no advantages worth the effort.
Today's question
At boot time, what determines which physical partition gets mounted as a
specific d
ion - primarily command line usage
2. 64 bit Debian with maximum features
3. 32 bit Debian - couple of applications require a 32 bit OS
4. other installs with strong project dependencies
Today's question
At boot time, what determines which physical partition gets mounted as
mines which physical partition gets mounted as a
specific directory ( /, /home, swap, and so forth )?
In most cases, mount actions are as described in /etc/fstab of the image being
booted.
AFAICT the /etc/fstab in the boot images of all my Debian systems
is empty. It's only when the roo
bit Debian with maximum features
3. 32 bit Debian - couple of applications require a 32 bit OS
4. other installs with strong project dependencies
Today's question
At boot time, what determines which physical partition gets mounted as a
specific directory ( /, /home, swap, and so forth )
three options]:
> > 1. minimalist installation - primarily command line usage
> > 2. 64 bit Debian with maximum features
> > 3. 32 bit Debian - couple of applications require a 32 bit OS
> > 4. other installs with strong project dependencies
> >
> > Tod
bit Debian with maximum features
3. 32 bit Debian - couple of applications require a 32 bit OS
4. other installs with strong project dependencies
Today's question
At boot time, what determines which physical partition gets mounted as a
specific directory ( /, /home, swap, and so forth )?
n install, using containers or VMs for the projects with a lot
of dependencies. But I appreciate it's a lot to get stuck into.
> Today's question
> At boot time, what determines which physical partition gets mounted as a
> specific directory ( /, /home, swap, and so forth )?
You as
On 08/19/2024 10:57 AM, Joe wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 08:44:39 -0500
Richard Owlett wrote:
THANK YOU
On 08/19/2024 07:02 AM, David wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 11:19, Richard Owlett
wrote:
At boot time, what determines which physical partition gets
mounted as a specific directory
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 08:44:39 -0500
Richard Owlett wrote:
> THANK YOU
>
> On 08/19/2024 07:02 AM, David wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 11:19, Richard Owlett
> > wrote:
> >> At boot time, what determines which physical partition gets
> >> mounted as a s
THANK YOU
On 08/19/2024 07:02 AM, David wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 11:19, Richard Owlett wrote:
At boot time, what determines which physical partition gets mounted as a
specific directory ( /, /home, swap, and so forth )?
Please reference documentation as reading it will remind me of how
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 11:19, Richard Owlett wrote:
> At boot time, what determines which physical partition gets mounted as a
> specific directory ( /, /home, swap, and so forth )?
>
> Please reference documentation as reading it will remind me of how and
> why I chose specific
ian - couple of applications require a 32 bit OS
4. other installs with strong project dependencies
Today's question
At boot time, what determines which physical partition gets mounted as a
specific directory ( /, /home, swap, and so forth )?
Please reference documentation as reading it w
On Wed Apr 24, 2024 at 1:50 PM BST, Richard wrote:
> upon gathering my thoughts for answering to you I found the solution to
> this: update-initramfs can't handle the case that crypttab ends in the line
> of the last entry and not in a new line character. I think there either
> should be a fix for
On 26/04/2024 12:56, David Wright wrote:
On Fri 26 Apr 2024 at 11:27:24 (+0900), John Crawley wrote:
Innocent question: what difference does the comment make vs just ending the
file with an empty line?
Nothing for the computer, but visibility for me.
Say you print the file on paper. All you
On 26/04/2024 10:56, David Wright wrote:
Editor examples: a windowed emacs buffer has a ≣ decoration at the
extreme left edge after the last line of text, so that you can
distinguish an absence of lines from empty lines.
Perhaps that decoration should be explicitly enabled. However it
reminded
On Fri 26 Apr 2024 at 11:27:24 (+0900), John Crawley wrote:
> On 24/04/2024 22:37, David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 24 Apr 2024 at 14:50:36 (+0200), Richard wrote:
> > > upon gathering my thoughts for answering to you I found the solution to
> > > this: update-initramfs can't handle the case that cry
On 24/04/2024 22:37, David Wright wrote:
On Wed 24 Apr 2024 at 14:50:36 (+0200), Richard wrote:
upon gathering my thoughts for answering to you I found the solution to
this: update-initramfs can't handle the case that crypttab ends in the line
of the last entry and not in a new line character. I
On Wed 24 Apr 2024 at 14:50:36 (+0200), Richard wrote:
> upon gathering my thoughts for answering to you I found the solution to
> this: update-initramfs can't handle the case that crypttab ends in the line
> of the last entry and not in a new line character. I think there either
> should be a fix
Hi Michel,
upon gathering my thoughts for answering to you I found the solution to
this: update-initramfs can't handle the case that crypttab ends in the line
of the last entry and not in a new line character. I think there either
should be a fix for this or at least a way to handle this case with
o name
> it like it is named in /etc/crypttab of the defective system
>
> 3. Now mount the device with root-filesystem to /mnt
>
> 4. If you have /boot as a separated partition, mount it to /mnt/boot
>
> 5. Now mount needed system directories to /mnt
>
> mount --bind /s
On 2024-04-23, Richard wrote:
> luks-775ea946-6797-4c4d-a042-72924309f3d2
> UUID=775ea946-6797-4c4d-a042-72924309f3d2 /crypto_keyfile.bin
> luks,keyscript=/bin/cat
> luks-78362aa3-760c-41de-b911-6531b684e3f7
> UUID=78362aa3-760c-41de-b911-6531b684e3f7 /crypto_keyfile.bin
> luks,keyscript=/
/crypttab of the defective system
3. Now mount the device with root-filesystem to /mnt
4. If you have /boot as a separated partition, mount it to /mnt/boot
5. Now mount needed system directories to /mnt
mount --bind /sys /mnt/sys
mount --bind /proc /mnt/proc
mount --bind /dev
Hi,
I've just set up a new computer with Debian Testing. I initially set it up
without a swap partition, but I want to add it now. The partition has
already been created as a LUKS2 partition, but I can't get update-initramfs
to add it so it will automatically be decrypted at boot (both
On Tue 20 Feb 2024 at 17:14:41 (+), debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> Felix Miata wrote:
> > Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100):
> >
> > > I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in
> > > used space reported by df
> >
> > df doesn't know how t
On Mon 19 Feb 2024 at 10:26:05 (+1100), Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> On 18/2/24 14:49, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> > On 18/2/24 07:34, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> > > Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> > > > Yes the / partitions are btrfs
> > >
> > > So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up b
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:21:05PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
>
> On 21/2/24 10:47, Felix Miata wrote:
> > I didn't think so, which begs the question why OP Keith is using it. :p
> > --
>
> I read somewhere about 2 years ago, that it automagically de-duped data
> when it detected I was copy
k was that article the other week;
and it now talks about a manual process to de-dupe the data. I don't
believe I could have skipped the most important paragraph in the
article. I prefer rdfind -makehardlinks.Writing to btrfs feels
quicker than ext4
But why use btrfs on a system parti
ilesystem usage /
>> snapper list
>> btrfs qgroup show /
> Thanks for the prompt, Felix
>>> sudo btrfs filesystem usage /
> [sudo] password for root:
> Overall:
> Device size: 70.00GiB = remember I expanded this
> pa
or the prompt, Felix
>> sudo btrfs filesystem usage /
[sudo] password for root:
Overall:
Device size: 70.00GiB = remember I expanded this partition
yesterday
Device allocated: 35.82GiB
Device unallocated: 34.18GiB
Device missing:
to...@tuxteam.de composed on 2024-02-20 09:38 (UTC+0100):
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:42:18AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100):
>>> I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in used
>>> space reported by df
>> df doesn'
Greg Wooledge composed on 2024-02-20 14:56 (UTC-0500):
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:47:26PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Surely somewhere on debian.org such things must be addressed if Bookworm's
>> default
>> has also been changed to btrfs.
> That has not happened. The default file system is
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:47:26PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> Surely somewhere on debian.org such things must be addressed if Bookworm's
> default
> has also been changed to btrfs.
That has not happened. The default file system is still ext4.
ble
Fedora forums. My own Gnu/Linux installations, other than Knoppix, have always
been on extX.
I suggest Keith's 36G / partition size must be a marginal for btrfs use. IIRC,
40G
may be the officially suggested minimum size for an openSUSE btrfs / filesystem
where /home/ is on a separate (
Felix Miata wrote:
> Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100):
>
> > I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in
> > used space reported by df
>
> df doesn't know how to calculate freespace on btrfs. You need to be
> typing
>
> btrfs filesystem df
Hi,
> when cfdisk reports:
> Device Start End Sectors Size Type
> /dev/sda2 1785522176 1786245119 722944 353M EFI System
> /dev/sda3 1786245120 1933045759 146800640 70G EFI System
> I don't understand the 'EFI System' note /dev
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:21:15PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
>
> On 20/2/24 19:38, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...]
> Tomas, the upgrade failure was earlier than these notes. It has now worked
I see.
> Sorry, but I don't know how to assess the snapshot space usage.
Nor do I -- my question w
On 20/2/24 19:38, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:42:18AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100):
I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in used
space reported by df
df doesn't know how to calculate free
On 20/2/24 18:42, Felix Miata wrote:
btrfs filesystem df
OK, so please interpret:
>> btrfs filesystem df -h /
Data, single: total=32.80GiB, used=31.94GiB
System, DUP: total=8.00MiB, used=16.00KiB
Metadata, DUP: total=1.50GiB, used=1.10GiB
GlobalReserve, single: total=71.69MiB, used=0.00B
k
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:42:18AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100):
>
> > I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in used
> > space reported by df
>
> df doesn't know how to calculate freespace on btrfs. You need to be t
dd some of the spare space the the / partition, but how much?
Play safe and use the lot, making it 60G compared to 63G on my daily
driver. (And create some free space off the data partition before it's
too late.)
Just as well I have time on my hands
Again, thanks to all for your suggest
Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100):
> I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in used
> space reported by df
df doesn't know how to calculate freespace on btrfs. You need to be typing
btrfs filesystem df
if you have not aliased df to btrfs f
s. Thanks folk
I am convinced that the missing space is used by btrfs snapshot process.
But WHY is the used space reporting on my daily driver LESS than that on
the spare machine 29G vs 35G? The original install was the same .iso
Ah well
I could add some of the spare space the the / partition,
On 19/2/24 13:00, Max Nikulin wrote:
On 19/02/2024 06:26, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
So later yesterday afternoon I created a new snapshot with no obvious
change is free space.
Effect of snapshots is delayed. When you remove a file that does not
belong to any snapshot, some disk space is rec
David Christensen wrote:
> On 2/18/24 19:20, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> > I am convinced that the missing space is used by btrfs snapshot
> > process.
>
>
> Perhaps. But, are you re-balancing your btrfs file systems regularly?
>
> https://manpages.debian.org/bookworm/btrfs-progs/btrfs-balance
Am 19.02.2024 um 04:20 schrieb Keith Bainbridge:
> I am convinced that the missing space is used by btrfs snapshot process.
First off: I am not a btrfs user (and will never be, i might add).
I am using zfs since many years, and - although i read an awful lot of
documentation beforehand, and played
On 2/18/24 19:20, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
I am convinced that the missing space is used by btrfs snapshot process.
Perhaps. But, are you re-balancing your btrfs file systems regularly?
https://manpages.debian.org/bookworm/btrfs-progs/btrfs-balance.8.en.html
Doing it by hand was not practic
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 02:20:20PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
[...]
> I am convinced that the missing space is used by btrfs snapshot process. But
> WHY is the used space reporting on my daily driver LESS than that on the
> spare machine 29G vs 35G? The original install was the same .iso Ah
ing space is used by btrfs snapshot process.
But WHY is the used space reporting on my daily driver LESS than that on
the spare machine 29G vs 35G? The original install was the same .iso
Ah well
I could add some of the spare space the the / partition, but how much?
Play safe and use the lot, ma
On 19/2/24 13:41, Felix Miata wrote:
would be some places to start. Didn't you do your
https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-filesystem.html
reading yet? ?_?
My eyes have glazed over too often, already. I know I have to get back,
but that NEED to do it is making it harder.
--
All t
Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-18 14:49 (UTC+1100):
> debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
>> So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots.
> Seems to be the prime suspect.
While snapshotting is obviously a consumer, until you use the right tool for the
job, you wo
On 19/02/2024 06:26, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
So later yesterday afternoon I created a new snapshot with no obvious
change is free space.
Effect of snapshots is delayed. When you remove a file that does not
belong to any snapshot, some disk space is reclaimed. However to restore
a file (even
On 18/2/24 14:49, Keith Bainbridge wrote:
On 18/2/24 07:34, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
Keith Bainbridge wrote:
Yes the / partitions are btrfs
So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots.
Seems to be the prime suspect. If that's the case, btrfs is NOT
On 18/2/24 14:08, Max Nikulin wrote:
On 17/02/2024 09:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
If so, you *could* have data inside the /home directory
of the root file system, which is hidden by the /home file system that's
mounted over it. You'd need to unmount /home to check.
A less intrusive way to ins
Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-17 15:44 (UTC+1100):
Yes the / partitions are btrfs
Several years ago, I installed Debian (9?) using btrfs for root (and
boot?). I failed to understand that btrfs required regular maintenance
and/or I was too lazy to figure it out and do it. After a fe
camera during many of those
times.
Thanks Cindy
Interesting
Though as far as I can recall the only files I have rsync'd onto / are
4or5 config files, and all in /home/keith which now on another
partition. And with a gain in free space which virtually matches its
reported space used, yest
On 18/2/24 07:34, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
Keith Bainbridge wrote:
Yes the / partitions are btrfs
So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots.
Seems to be the prime suspect. If that's the case, btrfs is NOT
hard-linking the snapshots as timeshift
On 17/02/2024 09:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
If so, you *could* have data inside the /home directory
of the root file system, which is hidden by the /home file system that's
mounted over it. You'd need to unmount /home to check.
A less intrusive way to inspect shadowed directories is bind mounts
On 2/17/24, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 04:00:14PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> > So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots.
>>
>> Another possibility is a (few) large file(s) that is/are still open for
>> some process(es) but have been `rm` (`unl
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 04:00:14PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots.
>
> Another possibility is a (few) large file(s) that is/are still open for
> some process(es) but have been `rm` (`unlink`) so they don't have a name
> any m
> So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots.
Another possibility is a (few) large file(s) that is/are still open for
some process(es) but have been `rm` (`unlink`) so they don't have a name
any more.
Stefan
Keith Bainbridge wrote:
> Yes the / partitions are btrfs
So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots.
Keith Bainbridge wrote:
...
> No nfs mounts
any swap partition or swap space?
but other than that sharing /home with / is likely your
issue and you mention snapshots and backintime and i do
recall that needing plenty of space.
as for btrfs, i have no clue, i've never to
1 - 100 of 2693 matches
Mail list logo
