istall of 9.1 remix

J dreadpiratejeff at gmail.com
Mon Feb 15 19:30:40 UTC 2010


On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:56, Loïc Grenié <loic.grenie at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/2/15 J <dreadpiratejeff at gmail.com>:
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 08:39, Loïc Grenié <loic.grenie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2010/2/15 Gary Kirkpatrick <pegngaryubuntu at gmail.com>:
>>>> She's got 122 gig for data and I am not sure she wants to put it there
>>>> or just on the ubuntu partition.  But for now I plan to install 10.1
>>>> on the 10 gig partition.
<SNIP>
>> Whats in that sda2 partition?  You said "data" but what data?  Is it
>> something she only needs for Windows, or is it something she wants to
>> share between the two?  I'm assuming that it's an NTFS partition.
>>
>> Here's the thing, I don't know for sure if you can set that NTFS
>> partition as /home.  NTFS has historically been a bit ... twitchy in
>> Linux, though the later drivers seem to be fairly stable when it comes
>> to reading and/or writing to NTFS partitions, but still, YMMV.
>
>     I think this is not what the OP said. As far as I understood
>  the sda3 partition was reformatted and used as /home (first try)
>  and / (second try).

Your guess is as good as mine.  He did say "Shes got 122GB for data"
but didn't specify if that's already a NTFS partition that she's using
with Windows, a blank partition to use for Linux, or what... which is
why I asked...

>     The /boot partition is not really needed (especially if you need to
>  install on a relatively small space). swap is usually recommended
>  but can also be made as a file on the / partition.

Not necessarily needed, however, it's also pretty good to separate
/boot and /home from / as good practice.  A separate boot partition
gives you a better chance of recovery should the / partition fail.
Not creating /boot as a separate partition means that if / fails, you
no longer get to boot.  With a separate boot partition you can still
get a running system, and on a netbook that can be beneficial.

Yes, you can boot the live distros from CD or USB and access root that
way should you need to, however, I like the warm fuzzy feeling of
redundancy.  Besides, it only costs 50 - 100MB, and unless he's got a
specific need for 15 separate partitions, no harm in doing this.

>> After install, create a mount point in /media or /home called
>> something like data, mystuff, or whatever:
>>
>> mkdir /media/mystuff
>> or
>> mkdir /home/mystuff
>
>     This is not needed: you can choose at install time where the
>  windows partition will show up. There are some sensible propositions
>  (I don't remember off-hand, something like /mnt/windows or so).

Sure, but I'm assuming post install.  In reality, I think the
installer will just create arbitrary mount points at install time if
you choose the defaults there, I just happen to like controlling what
the installer does.  And I like to do specialized configuration after
install.  Just my thing.  But yeah, my suggestion is no better than
allowing the installer to do it, it's just a different point of view.

>> P.S. I would also consider shrink that 122.9GB partition by 10GB or so
>> (Assuming she hasn't filled it up) to give Ubuntu a little more space
>> for the filesystem and for swap (I make most of mine with 2GB swap
>> partitions as a general rule).
>
>     I think s/he does not want to move anything on the computer. I'd
>  probably do the same with a computer that is not mine...

Again, your guess is as good as mine here...  however, with only 10GB
of free space, a 1 or 2 GB swap partition eats up a significant
percentage of disk space... Either way works though, YMMV.

Cheers,
Jeff

-- 

Joan Crawford  - "I, Joan Crawford, I believe in the dollar.
Everything I earn, I spend." -
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joan_crawford.html




More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list