Moving from 10.04 to 12.04
jf_byrnes at comcast.net
Sun Sep 9 14:15:44 UTC 2012
On 09/09/2012 08:13 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
> On 8 September 2012 20:05, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes at comcast.net> wrote:
>> Sooner or later I will need to move to 12.04. Before I make the move I need
>> to decide a couple of things.
>> First should I upgrade or do a clean install. When I went from Karmac to
>> Lucid I did an upgrade. It seemed to work well and I have had no problems,
>> but I see a lot of people advocating a clean install. Looking at my home
>> directory I see it has become a jumbled mess so doing a clean install would
>> give me a chance to restore some order.
> The upgrade will probably work fine, but f you can spare the time &
> effort to do a clean install, the result will be smaller, faster &
> probably more stable.
> Running 2 side-by-side is fine and safe and if you wish you can use a
> single swap partition shared between multiple installations - this is
> perfectly fine.
>> Thinking about doing the clean install I came up with this idea. I have a
>> brand new spare HD. I could put it in my case, unhook the old one and
>> hookup the new one. Install 12.04, get it running and install what I need.
>> Then hookup the old HD and copy home and what ever else I find I need to my
>> laptop. Hookup the new HD and copy over what I need from my laptop. This
>> way I have an untouched copy of 10.04 to use until I get 12.04 setup and
>> running the way I want it. Does that make sense?
> Yes, that's fine. Unlike Windows, which can get confused and use
> resources from an old installation in a new one, *buntu is smart
> enough not to muddle them up. You don't need to disconnect your old
Wouldn't there be confusion if there were two bootable HDs in the
system? Or would GRUB be modified on the fly to handle them?
>> This time I want to try a separate /home partition. I'm trying to decide how
>> much space to give / and how much to /home. The new HD is a 1TB one, I will
>> probably only format about 300GB. My current HD is 500GB and I formatted
>> about 290GB and have 146GB free.
> Out of curiosity, what's the rest of the space for? Windows?
No, its just space I don't need so I didn't format it. Also wouldn't
Ubuntu's periodic checking of the disk and maybe any repairs go faster
with less tracks formatted?
> Anyway, in terms of partitioning.
> You only really need 3:
> / - also known as "the root filesystem"
> /home - AKA "the home filesystem"
> swap - which doesn't get mounted, as such, so does not have a path
> All the software goes in the root FS. All your data goes in /home.
> These days, data is typically much bigger than S/W. Photos take many
> hundreds of meg, ditto music; videos take gigs.
> You don't usually need a lot of room for S/W.
> I would say that 8GB is a stingy amount of space but would probably
> work fine. 16GB is generous. 32GB is madly generous. More, for most
> people, would be wasteful.
> Swap, as you say, is typically 2× RAM (this is an old & now
> over-generous rule of thumb & is almost profligate these days, but
> hey, with a thousand gig to play with, why not?)
> All the rest can go to home.
> I always do it in a very old-fashion, standard way, using binary round
> numbers (i.e. powers of 2), like this:
> [ small optional DOS-bootable primary for BIOS flashing etc. - say
> 32MB, yes, *mega*bytes]
> [ bootable primary root - say 32GB]
> [ extended partition for whole rest of disk; in there: [/home] [swap] ]
>> I googled trying trying to find some guidance on how to allocate the
>> available space between / and /home, but found widely varying suggestions.
>> I decided to look at what I was using on my setup now
>> $ sudo du -shc / => total 105G
>> $ du -shc /home => total 64G
> Just use GParted. Much easier.
Doesn't GParted just show partitions? Right now I don't have a separate
/home which is why I am trying to figure out how space I would need in /
on my system right now if I had a separate /home partition.
> I suggest you give descriptive labels to your existing partitions.
> Gparted will do this & it is safe & non-destructive. Mine are called
> things like:
> "MS-DOS 32MB"
> "Spare primary"
> "Spare Ubuntu root"
> "Win2K 16GB"
> "Win7 24GB"
> "DATA 52GB"
> "2GB SWAP"
>> So this tells me that if I had a separate / and /home, / would be 41G. 41GB
>> seems large compared to sizes I saw when I doing my search and many of those
>> authors said they installed "tons of stuff". So is the method I used to
>> calculate my current / size valid?
> 41GB is a lot but not madly so on a 1TB drive. It's only 4% of the space.
Reading back over what I wrote maybe I wasn't clear. Right now I only
have one big partition (disregarding swap). I am trying to determine
how big of / partition I need just to accommodate the S/W I have now.
To do this I took the size of / and subtracted the size of home. This
gave me a size of 41GB which seemed large so I am wondering if the
method I used is valid.
>> If it was valid I am thinking of a / of ~100GB and /home of ~200GB, does
>> that seem OK?
> 100 gig is /way/ over the top. I see no reason for more than 32GB max.
But my calculation tells me it is already 41GB which is why I am
wondering if my calculation is correct.
More information about the ubuntu-users