Recommended sizes for file systems

[Rahul Sundaram]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:50:34 -0500, Graham Campbell
<gc1111 at optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 11:50 +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Saturday 20 November 2004 17:41, Chris Jones wrote:
> > > My question is what are the best partition sizes I should adopt,
> > > particalarly as I am about to upgrade to FC3 - / and /usr are both too
> > > small currently. Should I create symlinks into /home for some of the
> > > directory's in the / and /usr areas? If so, which ones can safely be
> > > symlinked? Or should I re-partition (after backing up everything I need)?
> >
> > If it works, one big partition, swap to a file.
> >
> > I've tried multipartitions, it alays causes hassles like this and it's never
> > saved me from anthing.
> >
> > If your hardware is pickly about where it loads the kernel from, then /boot of
> > 100 Mb ((or whatever fc docs say).
> >
> > Swap to a file, not to a partition.
> 
> I agree about the partitioning. The habit of splitting things into
> various partitions came from large multi-user systems where it has
> definite advantages. But for workstations, or other essentially single
> user systems it is definitely sub-optimal. 

no. this is just a problem of user education. If everyone adopts lvm
and learns to dynamically manage partitions then this problem would
just go away. fc3 default lvm is a step in the right direction. for
every user including desktop and workstation ones seperate partitions
are highly recommended. a home user with seperate /home can move
between distros and versions without losing data for example

-- 
Regards,
Rahul Sundaram