--- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, "Pascal" <pascal.bernhard@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael, hi Loyal,
>
> --- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, "loyal_barber" <loyal_barber@> wrote:
<snip>
> @Loyal: why would you want to set up 3 SWAP-partitions? Never heard
> of that. Beside, are we talking about a laptop or a desktop PC? I'd
> say for only laptop computers is SWAP 1.5 times the size of physical
> RAM sensible, for suspension to RAM. Normally you do not do that
> with a desktop system.
1. Why 3 swap partitions? I don't know the age of the hardware or
what distro we are talking about. You can Google the 2GB limit on
swap space for i86 architecture and Linux on your own. It is not
a hard rule on all distributions but I wanted to give advice that
would work in almost all situations not just make assumptions.
2. Different swap on Laptops verses Desktops. Never heard of this
theory. At the end of the day they are both just computers running
a Unix like operating system. I see no reason why you would ever
set them up differently based on whether you can carry it with
you or not.
>
> Depending on whether the partition table is MS-DOS or GPT, you do
> not have to worry about primary and logical partitions, MS-DOS can
> only handle 4 primary ones, GPT a much larger number (of primary
> partitions), although I'm not sure how many exactly. <snip>
I can't remember when the last time I saw a boot loader that could
not boot to a partition in an extended (> 4) DOS partition. Maybe
you know something I don't. I know that I have not had that problem
in the last five years at least. Also GPT ups the addressing from
32 bit addresses to 64 bit addresses which gets past many of the
limitations and work arounds of MSDOS. That said, GPT is not really
necessary even at this late date.
> <snip>
> A traditional partitioning layout would look like this:
I don't think there is such a thing as a traditional partitioning
layout. I bet from the members on this list we could find literally
hundreds of good partition setups.
> For /boot it is still advised to use the EXT3 file system, I do not
> know how stable EXT4 is for booting by GRUB (GRand Unified
> Bootloader, the default Linux boot loader). For / and /home you may
> use any file system you want, EXT4 would be standard.
This is actually a very old recommendation. Pretty sure all Debian/
Ubuntu based systems now put boot on an Ext4 if you let the installer
do it. I know I have not used ext3 in years for my boot partition.
> <snip>
>
> Hopefully that wasn't too confusing,
>
> Pascal
Just my $.02 worth.
Loyal
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (31) |
No comments:
Post a Comment