Moving from 10.04 to 12.04

[Jim Byrnes]

On 09/09/2012 05:10 PM, Johnny Rosenberg wrote:
> 2012/9/9 Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes at comcast.net>:
>> On 09/09/2012 11:01 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9 September 2012 16:49, Jim Byrnes <jf_byrnes at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know from reading your posts in the past you know way more than I do,
>>>> but
>>>> I don't agree here.  Maybe I didn't make my intent clear.  The two drives
>>>> will /never/ be hooked up at the same time.  The old HD will only be a
>>>> fallback if for some reason I can't get everything working on the new
>>>> install.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, that's fine. It's your PC! Do what you like! :¬) But one question
>>> - how are you going to transfer all your files & data across from old
>>> to new disk?
>>
>>
>> As I mention when I started this thread I would transfer them to my laptop
>> and then back to the new HD.  Thinking about my response I realized that I
>> have an external USB HD that I use for regular back ups so they would be
>> available there also.
>>
>>
>>>> So are you saying here that my calculation method is correct, but I could
>>>> reclaim a lot of space by doing what you outline above. In that case I
>>>> should do the clean up and then redo the calculation.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you like, yes. I am not sure there is much to be availed from it,
>>> but if you want to, knock yourself out. :¬)
>>>
>>> I don't know this, but I suspect something like it might be the case:
>>> if you have a big root FS, then Ubuntu won't bother to be very
>>> diligent about cleaning up package caches and so on. It might only
>>> take the time to clear down caches, possibly to purge old logfiles and
>>> so on once free space on the volume drops to a certain percentage or
>>> something. So if you have a relatively huge filesystem, it will let
>>> stuff mount up; if you have a smaller one, it will purge caches & logs
>>> more often to ensure that the drive never gets below 25% full or
>>> something.
>>>
>>> This is pure supposition, I emphasise.
>>>
>>> But in terms of space for root - a full install of Ubuntu is only a
>>> few gig. Add in all the proprietary extras and so on and it's still
>>> not much bigger than that. You can fit a working, complete,
>>> un-pared-down install into 4GB. 8GB will be less than 50% used when
>>> new. 16GB will be under 25% used when new, full updated & with a few
>>> extra apps added - I routinely add things like Pidgin, Synaptic,
>>> Google Chrome, a few indicators, commonly VirtualBox and so on.
>>>
>>> 16GB is quite generous and will normally go 75% unused. 32GB is
>>> extremely generous and will typically go about 85-90% unused. More
>>> than that is just throwing disk space away, but hey, if you have it,
>>> there is nothing to stop you throwing it away.
>>>
>>> My server machines (no GUI etc.) typically run off 8GB drives or
>>> partitions and have tons of room to spare.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All the numbers you state above just make me more than ever want to know if
>> the assumptions I made in calculating what the size of my / partition would
>> be if I had a separate /home partition on my present HD. I calculated it to
>> be 41GB which seemed high compared to what I saw on the web and certainly is
>> when looking at your numbers.  So far no one has said "Hey Jim your numbers
>> are way off because..."
>>
>> Regards,  Jim
>
> I don't know if this is of any help, but I guess I could share my file
> system data. I installed Ubuntu 12.04 today from scratch, except that
> I kept my files on my /home partition. My previous version was Ubuntu
> 10.10, so I figured that I would save a lot of time doing this from
> scratch rather than upgrade from the update manager.
>
> Anyway, my internal drive, which is 300 GB is split into the following
> partitions:
> sda5 is my / directory and it is 18.3 GiB, but only 4.9 GiB (≈28 %) is
> used at the moment, so I guess 18.3 GiB is way overkill. Maybe
> somewhat less than 10 would be more reasonable, let's say 7 or 8.
> sda6 is my /boot partition. I guess it's not necessary to have /boot
> on a separate partition, and I am not sure why I have it, but it's
> rather small anyway: 938.0 MiB, that's less than 1 GiB. Only 186.2 MiB
> (≈20 %) of it is used, though.
> sda7 is my 1.86 GiB swap partiton.
> sda8 is my /home directory and it holds the rest of the drive, which
> is 272.3 GiB. How much I used so far is not very interesting, since it
> depends on what kind of files you have and how many. For Video
> production, my drive might not be big enough in the long run, but I'm
> mostly an audio guy (and kind of a musician) so there are a lot of
> FLAC files, but also some images and videos. One need to have more
> than one hobby in life, right…? I can see no reason to keep a part of
> the drive unused, because sooner or later you use more space than you
> though you would. I use approximately 60 % of my /home space, which is
> 157.6 GiB.
>
> So, if I had your stuff, I would probably try 8 GiB (≈8.6 GB) for /,
> no separate /boot partition (unless someone suddenly gave me a very
> good reason for it) and the rest for /home, which would be about 991.4
> GB, right? Minus your Swap partition, of course. I don't think you
> mentioned it, but maybe I just missed it somehow. So, if 4 GB (≈3.73
> GiB) of Swap, then maybe 9 GB for /, 4 GB for Swap and 987 GB for
> /home would work fine. Or 10 – 4 – 986… Well, with 1 TB it's not that
> critical… ☺
>
>
> Johnny Rosenberg
>

I think 8GiB would be to small for me. By my calculation I have 40GB + 
outside of my present home folder.  If my present setup had a separate 
/home partition that 40GB would be in / right? Put another way if I open 
nautilus and click File System everything displayed except home would be 
in / is that correct.

Regards,  Jim