question on HD space setup

[Yamaneko]

I'm going to go pickup the new computer today. It has two 120gb HDs.

What would the best setup be?

HD1: Windows XP, Gentoo Linux, Main Backup Partition
HD2: XP Backup Partition, Gentoo Backup Partition, Windows Virtual Memory file Partition, Linux Virtual Memory file Partition, Secondary Backup Partition

There's speed improvement if I allocate the space for the virtual memory on the HD that doesn't have the OS's, right?

[crono_logical]

There's speed improvement using a different and dedictated partition for the page file for Windows, yes, since it means the page file shouldn't fragment so access in it stays faster than if it did fragment. Don't bother making it bigger than 4 GB though, Windows can only use 4 GB virtual memory maximum (page plus RAM) on 32-bit machines as far as I know. I'm not so sure about if using a seperate physical drive also necessarily yields better speed though, especially with similar physical drives. Maybe if they were on seperate drive controllers and on their own, but I doubt it if they shared a cable. I'd personally stick all partitions an OS would need to boot and function on the same disk anyway, as it allows me to move physical disks between machines much more easily.

As for best setup, it really depends on what you're going to use each OS for, and so what partitions you want to give each one and their sizes. For Windows, I'd want at least 3 partitions - one for the OS and installed programs (these can be split into 2 partitions if you want though, like I tend to do), one for the page file, and at least one for different types of user data you don't want to lose if you need to reinstall Windows, which is a common thing to do :p For linux, I'd probably say 3 partitions - an ext2 boot, a swap, and an ext3 partition for everything else - though Unne would know better than me and might say more to split the programs and user data. In your case, you might want yet another partition to allow sharing data between the two OSs, though this might easily double as Windows' user data partition if you use FAT32 for it.

[Dr Unne]

4GB swapfile? *faints*

For Linux, I don't know what performance you gain or lose from having partitions on different physical drives. I would guess that keeping things on the same phyiscal drive would tend to be faster, but I have no idea.

So far as partitions, this is what I'd do:
- 100MB boot (ext2)
- A goodly sized root partition (i.e. /), reiserfs or ext3 or whatever (I like resierfs). For some perspective, I have 21GB /, and I really have trouble filling it. Darn Linux and its lack of bloat. There's a real limit on how much you're going to need to put in /, depending on what choices you make of course.
- An even bigger /home, reiserfs or ext3. /home is where you'll store most of your crap (movies, music, documents), so if you're anything like me, it'll take up more room than anything else. You want /home separate, because it's what you really don't want to lose in case a partition dies.
- If you care at all about security, make your /tmp a separate partition too, because it tends to be world-writable, and a rogue program can fill up your HD if /tmp isn't its own partition.
- Swap partition, size depends on how much RAM you have. If you have less than 512MB or so, then 2x RAM size is fine. Unless you're running something berserk, you aren't going to be touching your swapfile much. I have 512MB RAM and 512 MB swap, and on the rare occassion I use swap, it's usually less than 50MB, and only lasts for a second or two. Darn Linux and its lack of bloat. Swap space doesn't hurt anything though (that I know of), and its good for emergencies.

So far as backup partitions, dunno. I just use CDs, and keep a ~/backups folder.

I agree that if you want to share files between OSes, you need a FAT32 partition. In fact, I'd say install Windows itself on FAT32. That way one day when you realize you're wasting all that HD space on Windows partitions, you can easily resize them and give up the space to Linux.

Pay attention to what order you put the partitions on the disk too. Think which one you might be most likely to want to grow, and which most likely to shrink, and put them beside each other on the disk.

[Yamaneko]

I'll stick the swap/virtual/paging (how many names are there for this?) files on the master drive. I have 1024mb of RAM, so the Windows swap file should be what? Double that? Half that?

I'll make a partition for each OS plus the boot partition. A backup partition for each OS (FAT 32). /home and /tmp will get there own partition also.

Can I do all this with Partition Magic?

I'm in the process of formatting both hard disks right now. I should have XP up and running by the time you read this. Hopefully I'll start installing Gentoo tomorrow or Thursday.

[Dr Unne]

Don't make your Linux backup partition FAT32. FAT32 can't preserve Linux file permissions, so it gets messy.

You can probably do all that with Partition Magic, but fdisk works fine too (except maybe for NTFS, dunno). The Gentoo install docs tell you how to use fdisk.

[crono_logical]

Windows always recommends 1.5x your RAM for swap for some reason, though in practice, with 1 GB, you're likely to never touch the swap file, so unless you're doing RAM eating tasks, you could get away without a swap file. I have one anyway though just in case, because I've got the disk space to waste, and having it means it won't fragment in the case it does suddenly get used. I rarely go over 700 MB of virtual memory in use - of which 150 MB tends to be Mozilla as that seems to eat more and more memory as time passes, forcing me to restart it once every week or two, which is annoying :p

[Peegee]

You have the oddest software usage practices ever :D

[Citizen Bleys]

Don't install Windows 2000 or XPee on anything but NTFS. You lose too much power that way.

[Dr Unne]

Yeah, using NTFS, you gain the power to be unable to write to the partition from anything other than Windows, for example.

[Baloki]

*shrugs*

[crono_logical]

Knoppix could write to NTFS last time I checked :p

[Dr Unne]

The kernel itself officially only supports writing to a file on NTFS which is already created, and only if you don't change the filesize. There's a semi-new experimental sort of driver which uses the native Windows NTFS libraries to achieve write support. I've never tried it before, but that'd be neat if it worked well, and if Knoppix includes it. I'd be nervous about trying it on a partition that contained valuable data.

[crono_logical]

I don't think being unable to use NTFS outside Windows is that big a deal anyway. If you want to use a Windows-NT based OS, it's best to use it's native file system for the most power in that OS, so NTFS. If you're using Linux, it's best to install to a partition using one of Linux's native file systems, so ext2/ext3/reiserfs/whatever else they're coming up with. If you're using BeOS, you'd want to install to a BeFS partition. I don't know what the heck Macs use :p In that way though, you're not using the OS you chose, or letting it perform, in as half-hearted a manner as you might have if you had picked a different file system. Stuff like FAT32 is really only for cross-platform compatibility for sharing data these days.

Linux having support for the widest range of file systems though just makes it the best for troubleshooting a computer regardless of the installed OSs.

[Yamaneko]

I installed XP on NTFS. It didn't give me the option to install on FAT32.

I partitioned my HDs into ten pieces. I made a partition for /home and /tmp. I made a FAT32 shared disk partition as well.

Question: How do you get rid of the low disk space warning? My swap file is on a seperate partition and it's taking up all, but 10mb of that partition, so it gives me low disk space warnings constantly.

I'm having some network troubles between my old and new computer now, but I'll make a new thread shortly for that. *cough* Bleys *cough* :D

[crono_logical]

You won't get the FAT32 option if you try installing to a partition over a certain size. I can't remember if it's 8 GB or 32 GB though. XP certainly won't let you format partitions over 32 GB as FAT32, though the reason I think 8 GB is also a possibility is because of a boot partition size/location restriction or something due to the way HDs are accessed during the initial boot up.

I use TweakUI for XP to remove the low disk space warning, I don't know the exact registry key it modifies, though you could probably Google for it :p

[Baloki]

I use TweakUI for XP to remove the low disk space warning, I don't know the exact registry key it modifies, though you could probably Google for it :p

I think you can right-click the drive and theres a nice little tickbox there somewhere. Or it might be in the recycle bin options...

[Yamaneko]

I always install TweakUI, so I just used that. :)

[Citizen Bleys]

Yeah, using NTFS, you gain the power to be unable to write to the partition from anything other than Windows, for example.


For 90% of the world, that's not a disadvantage, because they don't have the time to learn Linux.

[Dr Unne]

Yamaneko IS using Linux (see also: first post), which is why I said it. If Linux wasn't involved, then I'd say use NTFS, sure. Not much reason not to.

[Yamaneko]

Well, I'm actually downloading the Minimal Live CD right now, but I should be ready to install by tomorrow morning and have everything setup (if I don't mess anything up) by tomorrow night. :)

Isn't NTFS highly protected by MS? Or so I've heard.

[Dr Unne]

No more protected than anything else, meaning to say it's a big secret how it all works and people have to guess. Being able to read other filesystems would be beneficial too, for example if MS had any support whatsoever for ext or reiserfs, but do you really expect MS to care about customers? They no longer have a reason to care, since they own 90% of the world, as Bleys said.

One day for a Gentoo install is a generous estimate, especially for your first install.

[Citizen Bleys]

My first install took just over 2 hours.

EDIT: First succesful install, that is. But I think the pooched one was because I was using the wrong iso.

[Dr Unne]

Including X? How? Did you use binary packages or distcc? Are you running some kind of supercomputer? It still takes me over an hour just to compile X, and I have a 2.6 GHz machine.

[Yamaneko]

Maybe Bleys is just running X alone. There's a GUI? :D

[Citizen Bleys]

Including KDE. Your computer must be gimped because it wasn't on a terrific machine (sub 1-GHz, IIRC), and it was behind a proxy.

[Dr Unne]

2 hours to compile KDE on a sub-1-GHz machine? That's extremely unlikely, going by my own experience and the experiences of countless others I've talked to. Unless you used binary packages or distcc, like I said.