Multiple partitions on 1 and 2 Unix PC hard disks.
andrew.d.hay
mvadh at cbnews.att.com
Mon Nov 19 23:49:10 AEST 1990
In article <1990Nov16.033801.978 at shibaya.lonestar.org>, afc at shibaya.lonestar.org (Augustine Cano) writes:
> In preparation for a 2 stage upgrade, I now seek some net advice.
[]
> Cons:
[]
> 3 - having / and /u on the same disk would make for lots of head
> movement. However, would this be any worse than the standard,
> one-partition per drive, unix pc way of doing things?
somewhat. with one partition, you have
|---FILES---|-----FREESPACE-----|
with two, it's
|files|freespace|files|freespace|
thus involving (slightly) longer seeks.
however, see comment on thrashing below.
[]
> Another possibility is to have /tmp as the other partition on
> the second drive. This would speed things up, but somehow I feel that a
> 40 Mb /tmp is excessive. How big should /tmp be, if it gets its own
> partition? I have stuffed some pretty big things in /tmp before and it was
> nice to have all the free space on the drive available, so maybe the speed
> penalty of having /tmp in the / partition is worth it. Comments?
i don't think /tmp should be larger than 16M; probably 8 would be enough.
> Also, I seem to recall that without re-linking the kernel, you
> can only have 2 partitions per drive (in addition to /dev/fp000 and
> /dev/fp001), is this correct? Does this also apply to the second drive,
> without a swap partition? Also, would it do any good to have a swap
> partition larger than 5000 blocks? (I also plan to add 1.5 Mb RAM to a
> RAM-less combo board.)
you can have up to 16 partitions per drive (including swap and boot), but the
kernel mount table is only 4 entries long. THIS INCLUDES THE FLOPPY!
if you run a lot of programs at once (or big ones), there is a benefit in a
larger swap space. when swap is full, the next process to swap out gets
dropped on the floor.
[]
> Opinions anyone? Those of you who have 2 HDs and/or multiple partitions,
> how did you do it? Any other considerations I have overlooked? Have any
> benchmarks been run on different partitioning schemes and what directories
> were placed where? Will some programs be broken by the multiple partitions?
> Which ones?
we have a lot of 2-drive unix machines here. they're partitioned thusly:
/ and users (/u on the 3b1) on drive 1, and /usr and /tmp on drive 2.
one goal: make root a static filesystem; remove all directories that thrash to
mounted filesystems.
another goal: balance filesystem activity across both drives.
one program that will break is install software; it uses mv to shift files
out of /tmp.
of course, mv could be fixed (on my list of things-to-do) to work across
filesystems...
--
Andrew Hay +------------------------------------------------------+
Ragged Individualist | You just have _N_O idea! It's the difference |
AT&T-BL Ward Hill MA | between _S_H_O_O_T_I_N_G a bullet and _T_H_R_O_W_I_N_G it! |
a.d.hay at att.com +------------------------------------------------------+
More information about the Comp.sys.att
mailing list