NetBSD-Users archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: boot disk has two MBR partitions
Hi, michael, list
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Michael van Elst
<mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost> wrote:
> hansdinsenhansen%gmail.com@localhost (hans dinsen-hansen) writes:
>
>>My tiny comment: What about swap? (!)
>>In my opinion swap should be at least to times the size of your memory..
>>Of course, swap could be a memory-disk.
>
> swap on a memory disk is a bit insane :)
You could not be more right!!!!
.... but some mad possibilities exist . in most - if not all - systems ;)
> swap doesn't need to be the size of the memory. That was true when
> the swap space was used to back the whole virtual memory, nowadays
> the swap is just extra memory and can be sized for whatever out-of-memory
> conditions you need to survive.
Yes, you are right. Sorry, my mind was way back in the "good old days" when
memory was measured in kilobytes and disk in megabytes.
>
> The swap partition is also used for a crash dumps. So if you want to
> analyze system crashes (and you do not have your own dump partition or disk),
> it still can be handy to have a swap partition that is as large as
> your memory.
>
>
>>Secondly I see no eason to divide a disk between a root partition and a
>>partition for the rest. In the "good old days (when things were bad)" we had
>>disk of some 60-80 MB. and whenever something grew too big, we
>>had to re-arrange data via save/restore. I have spent many a night with
>>that job
>
> True, on the other hand separate partitions help for recovery. E.g. if
> /var is damaged you can still boot in single user mode. It also prevents
> something like growing logfiles from filling up the whole disk, so
> you can still use services that require space elsewhere.
>
> I tend to use a single partition on systems that I can just throw away
> and reinstall when damaged. But otherwise I use a few separate partitions,
> in particular for / and /var (and /tmp is a memory filesystems, so it is
> separate too). ...
Quite right. But I'll continue to do it my way. And you'll
(hopefully) do it your way.
Kind regards
Hans
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index