[H-GEN] partitioning again

[James McPherson]

(Note reply-to: being general at humbug.org.au vs James McPherson <jmcphers at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>)


Robert Brockway writes:
 > (Note reply-to: being general at humbug.org.au vs Robert Brockway <robert at blake.humbug.org.au>)
 > On Wed, 12 May 1999, James McPherson wrote:
 > >  > blake has 8 partitions but all other boxen have 1 each :)
 > > well from an enterprise point of view (ie we run oracle ;>), that sort of
 > > scheme is laughable because there are just too many things which can go wrong
 > > if there is not enough space - we can't afford that possibility. On the
 > 
 > [snip]
 > 
 > > /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0      57143   19234   32195    38%    /
 > > /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1     962582  399296  505532    45%    /usr
 > > /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s4     448143  207353  195976    52%    /var
 > > swap                 1069220  252500  816720    24%    /tmp
 > > /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0     480919  126977  329897    28%    /opt
 > > /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s1     962582  476992  437461    53%    /home
 > 
 > James, my partitioning scheme is similar to yours:
 > 
 > blake[5:59pm]:~>df
 > Filesystem         1024-blocks  Used Available Capacity Mounted on
 > /dev/hda1              15856   14111      915     94%   /
 > /dev/hda3            1189542  602476   525604     53%   /usr
 > /dev/hda4             726443  534353   154568     78%   /opt
 > /dev/hdb1              63885     142    60444      0%   /tmp
 > /dev/hdb2             127361   32789    87995     27%   /var
 > /dev/hdb3             634724  182660   419279     30%   /var/spool
 > /dev/hdb4             385923  273690    92300     75%   /home
 > 
 > So, the fact that it is on only 2 disks does not in itself make it
 > laughable, even in a commercial environment, if the available disk space
 > is sufficient for the application.

sorry - I wasn't being sufficiently careful in what I was referring to. I was
actually referring to your non-blake machines. As for enterprise/commercial
environments, well, how you set them up depends on what your needs are. A
small site might get away with only two disks - but not if they're running a
dbms such as oracle, ingres, db2 or sybase because the requirements for
logfiles and continual disk access would mean that general access would be
pretty poor.

 > > While we're at it, what do people think about Solaris' use of tmpfs for
 > > virtual memory? This what we're seeing at the moment on this particular
 > > machine:
 > 
 > I think the tmpfs idea is an excellent one.  Apparently a Linux
 > implementation is in the works (tm).

I'd also like to see the savecore facility but newgroup archives lead me to
believe that that is unlikely even though it would be _very_ useful.


James
--
Unix Systems Administrator            Phone: +61.2.9850.9418
Office of Computing Services            Fax: +61.2.9850.7433
Macquarie University   NSW    2109     remove the extra char 
AUSTRALIA			       in the reply-to field

--
This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
Postings only from subscribed addresses of lists general or general-post.