I'm moving drives between my PC, my server and my spares. I'm hoping to hear
a few opinions about what I'm trying to improve...

What I want, from most important to least.

- Increase the snappyness of my PC
- Increase storage space on server
- Add a Fedora Linux installation to my PC

--- My current configuration: ---
(all drives are 7200rpm, 2meg cache)

My PC: Windows XP SP1, 2.6Ghz P4 @ 3.2ghz, 512meg of DDR533 memory (PC4300)
- C:= 80gig - all files - NTFS

Server: Windows 2003, AMD XP2000+ @ 1.67Ghz, 512meg DDR memory
- C: = 40gig+40gig in RAID 0 - System, Programs, Shared documents, Windows
swap - NTFS
- D: = 120 gig - MP3, Archival, Windows swap - NTFS

USB2 external: 40gig - Backup & Transfer - FAT

Spare: 60gig


--- What I'm considering: ---

My PC:
- 40gig - 39gig as System files - NTFS
- 1gig Linux swap
- 40gig - 2 gig as Windows swap and Linux accessible - FAT
- 38gig as Fedora Linux - Reiser FS (what partitions should be
real partitions? usr? home? var?)

Server:
- 40gig - System files - NTFS
- 80gig - Programs, Shared files, Documents, etc. + Windows swap files -
NTFS
- 120gig - MP3, Archival + Windows swap

USB2 external: 60gig - Backup & Transfer - FAT


So... does this sound OK? Any comments or suggestions?

Personally, I'd just like to pick up a 34gig Raptor SATA drive and use that
for my system drive. I know I'd see a BIG improvement, but money isn't there
and I've already got too many HDDs!!!

"Noozer" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:<NRorc.557879$Ig.379124@pd7tw2no>...
> I'm moving drives between my PC, my server and my spares. I'm hoping to hear
> a few opinions about what I'm trying to improve...
>
> What I want, from most important to least.
>
> - Increase the snappyness of my PC

Presume you mean user perceived responsiveness as opposed to measured
"snappiness".

> - Increase storage space on server
> - Add a Fedora Linux installation to my PC
>
> --- My current configuration: ---
> (all drives are 7200rpm, 2meg cache)
>
> My PC: Windows XP SP1, 2.6Ghz P4 @ 3.2ghz, 512meg of DDR533 memory (PC4300)
> - C:= 80gig - all files - NTFS
>
> Server: Windows 2003, AMD XP2000+ @ 1.67Ghz, 512meg DDR memory
> - C: = 40gig+40gig in RAID 0 - System, Programs, Shared documents, Windows
> swap - NTFS
> - D: = 120 gig - MP3, Archival, Windows swap - NTFS
>
> USB2 external: 40gig - Backup & Transfer - FAT

To be used as a "hot pluggable" disk?

>
> Spare: 60gig
>
>
> --- What I'm considering: ---
>
> My PC:
> - 40gig - 39gig as System files - NTFS
> - 1gig Linux swap
> - 40gig - 2 gig as Windows swap and Linux accessible - FAT
> - 38gig as Fedora Linux - Reiser FS (what partitions should be
> real partitions? usr? home? var?)

Presume you know that having swap on different hds only "gains" you
anything if the hds are eg., primary master and secondary master --
and if you really use/need swap that much. If you're using swap that
much, get more ram ;-)
Partitions will depend on how you use the PC -- less critical here
than server. I always like having /boot on a separate (primary)
partition. Same for FAT "sharing" partition. Gave up years ago
trying to "optimize" placement of swap -- just buy more ram ;-)

> Server:
> - 40gig - System files - NTFS
> - 80gig - Programs, Shared files, Documents, etc. + Windows swap files -
> NTFS
> - 120gig - MP3, Archival + Windows swap
>
> USB2 external: 60gig - Backup & Transfer - FAT
>
>
> So... does this sound OK? Any comments or suggestions?

Seems OK to me -- but only you can really determine appropriateness.

> Personally, I'd just like to pick up a 34gig Raptor SATA drive and use that
> for my system drive. I know I'd see a BIG improvement, but money isn't there
> and I've already got too many HDDs!!!

Since we don't know what sorts of apps you run that seem to have you
scurrying to "get the most out of swap" performance, it's really hard
to tell what -- if any -- snappiness increase you'll get. Any time
you're using swap much, it's an indication that the apps need more ram
or your usage pattern -- load every .exe on disk -- needs more ram to
feed the habit.

I like to keep my disk structures fairly simple since it makes
maintainence easier -- at least that's the aim ;-).

Partitioning with Linux also has security (improved) implications by
physically dividing where files (and file access) are used. For
servers, thoughtful consideration is mandatory, IMO. For desktop/end
user machines it may be more important to divy up the disk so that
backups and upgrades are easier.

/ [ that's root]
/boot (on a primary patition)
/usr
/home
/tmp
/var
/swap

would be my inclination to start with. Perhaps a separate /scratch or
/data if it makes life easier. This is habit from setting up servers
and some items (like /var and /tmp and even /usr) could be combined.
If you use much third party software -- or any that are sizable -- you
may find a separate /opt to be useful.

Besides usage the distro you're using can also influence these
decisions. The layout on RH and Fedora Core (?) can get in the way of
updating some software if you want to use the default layout.
Personally, I keep OOo, J2SDK, and Netbeans on /opt -- would keep KDE
there also, but I'm too lazy to compile my own KDE updates and I'm
willing to live with the RH compatible updates compiled by others.
The others offer binaries that will set comfortably in /opt and not
clutter the rest of the RH layout while offering more timely updates.

Consider with a grain of salt ...

hth,
prg
email above disabled

> > What I want, from most important to least.
> >
> > - Increase the snappyness of my PC
>
> Presume you mean user perceived responsiveness as opposed to measured
> "snappiness".

Exactly... With a CPU at 3Ghz I don't think making the computer faster will
resolved the delays I see sometimes from my desktop. I'm pretty sure it's
just a matter of the IDE bus being busy.

Most of the time the PC is just fine, but anything "file" intensive like my
email/newsgroup reader (my folders are very large as I need access to very
old email, etc.) or processing large ZIP files, etc. causes the desktop to
run slowly as it retrieves icon caches and the like.

If I have three or four ZIPs compressing or decompressing I shouldn't see a
hit on the speed that the desktop itself reacts. I currently do since many
of the files are coming from my C: drive, which also holds my swap file as
well as my system files.

> > My PC: Windows XP SP1, 2.6Ghz P4 @ 3.2ghz, 512meg of DDR533 memory
(PC4300)
> > - C:= 80gig - all files - NTFS
> >
> > Server: Windows 2003, AMD XP2000+ @ 1.67Ghz, 512meg DDR memory
> > - C: = 40gig+40gig in RAID 0 - System, Programs, Shared documents,
Windows
> > swap - NTFS
> > - D: = 120 gig - MP3, Archival, Windows swap - NTFS
> >
> > USB2 external: 40gig - Backup & Transfer - FAT
>
> To be used as a "hot pluggable" disk?

Yes. Currently it's drive E: on my PC. I've moved some apps to that drive
and when they are busy I don't have the delays I used see on my desktop when
they were active. This is why I think spreading out my load on the IDE
busses will help.

> > Spare: 60gig
> >
> > --- What I'm considering: ---
> >
> > My PC:
> > - 40gig - 39gig as System files - NTFS
> > - 1gig Linux swap
> > - 40gig - 2 gig as Windows swap and Linux accessible - FAT
> > - 38gig as Fedora Linux - Reiser FS (what partitions
should be
> > real partitions? usr? home? var?)
>
> Presume you know that having swap on different hds only "gains" you
> anything if the hds are eg., primary master and secondary master --
> and if you really use/need swap that much. If you're using swap that
> much, get more ram ;-)

Watching the TaskManagers performance tab I very rarely see my peak "Commit
Charge" go past about 65% of my physical memory (Ie 350meg of 512).
Processor utilization is rarely high, even when the computer seems sluggish.

> Partitions will depend on how you use the PC -- less critical here
> than server. I always like having /boot on a separate (primary)
> partition. Same for FAT "sharing" partition. Gave up years ago
> trying to "optimize" placement of swap -- just buy more ram ;-)

I know... I paid a premium for DDR533. Looking back I think it was a bit
foolish, but the machine benchmarks very well (except IDE of course) I'm
considering selling it and picking up more memory (DDR433 or 466), but I
doubt I'd see anything close to what I paid.

> > Server:
> > - 40gig - System files - NTFS
> > - 80gig - Programs, Shared files, Documents, etc. + Windows swap
files -
> > NTFS
> > - 120gig - MP3, Archival + Windows swap
> >
> > USB2 external: 60gig - Backup & Transfer - FAT

> Seems OK to me -- but only you can really determine appropriateness.

Just trying to avoid being bitten in the ass after the fact. Also hoping it
would help some of the "speed demons" when they are considering their
setups. RAID and bus speeds only help out when you don't have other
bottlenecks. Also, a fast PC will still seem slow and clunky if you overlook
your file system layout.

> > Personally, I'd just like to pick up a 34gig Raptor SATA drive and use
that
> > for my system drive. I know I'd see a BIG improvement, but money isn't
there
> > and I've already got too many HDDs!!!
>
> Since we don't know what sorts of apps you run that seem to have you
> scurrying to "get the most out of swap" performance, it's really hard
> to tell what -- if any -- snappiness increase you'll get. Any time
> you're using swap much, it's an indication that the apps need more ram
> or your usage pattern -- load every .exe on disk -- needs more ram to
> feed the habit.

I boot, open email and news at the same time, run BNR2, Par/Unzip CD and DVD
images. Usually all at the same time.

I should have also mentioned that the connection between my PC and the
server is gigabit, so LAN speeds aren't having much of an affect... I'm
limited to drive speeds here. Best I can get across the LAN copying files is
about 250 mbits.

> I like to keep my disk structures fairly simple since it makes
> maintainence easier -- at least that's the aim ;-).
>
> Partitioning with Linux also has security (improved) implications by
> physically dividing where files (and file access) are used. For
> servers, thoughtful consideration is mandatory, IMO. For desktop/end
> user machines it may be more important to divy up the disk so that
> backups and upgrades are easier.
>
> / [ that's root]
> /boot (on a primary patition)
> /usr
> /home
> /tmp
> /var
> /swap
>
> would be my inclination to start with. Perhaps a separate /scratch or
> /data if it makes life easier. This is habit from setting up servers
> and some items (like /var and /tmp and even /usr) could be combined.
> If you use much third party software -- or any that are sizable -- you
> may find a separate /opt to be useful.

Are there any websites that describe the actual uses for these partitions?
The HowTo's and manpages that I've found aren't very specific. Currently I
create /boot, /swap and / holds everything else.

> Besides usage the distro you're using can also influence these
> decisions. The layout on RH and Fedora Core (?) can get in the way of
> updating some software if you want to use the default layout.
> Personally, I keep OOo, J2SDK, and Netbeans on /opt -- would keep KDE
> there also, but I'm too lazy to compile my own KDE updates and I'm
> willing to live with the RH compatible updates compiled by others.
> The others offer binaries that will set comfortably in /opt and not
> clutter the rest of the RH layout while offering more timely updates.

I'm a Linux newbie, so keeping it simple is important. I'm planning on
trying out Fedora Core2, Test 3 (unless there is something newer available)
in the next little while. I'm hoping it has proper AGP support for the I875p
chipset. I couldn't get AGP acceleration in Suse 9.1or Mandrake 9.?

I appreciate the comments. It looks like I'm on the right track.

Take care!

On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:02:05 +0000, Noozer wrote:

> - Increase the snappyness of my PC
> - Increase storage space on server
> - Add a Fedora Linux installation to my PC

Rather than increase storage space, I'd recommend that you better utilise
the space you already have first.

Also, why use Windows for the server? A server's OS should be transparent
to the client, so it doesn't matter one way or the other ... except from
the point of view of cost, available services, administration, security
and stability. Since you're installing Fedora on the client anyway, just
make the server a Linux system too (although OpenBSD would be even better
for a server).

Bear in mind, that a true server is not a machine that you sit down in
front of and play solitaire, it's supposed to be invisible and silent -
usually without even a mouse, keyboard or monitor, but rather accessed and
administered remotely.

From what you've posted here, I get the impression that the "server" is
not actually on a network, but instead you are physically carrying data
across in a USB drive? No, no, no, no, no!

Here's what I'd do:

(Current) Requirements:
1 server (file & possibly other unspecified services).
1 client running Windows XP & Linux (dual boot).
Improve client system responsiveness.
Increase (or better utilise) server storage.

Drives:
3 x 40GB - disks 1, 2, 3
1 x 60GB - disk 4
1 x 80GB - disk 5
1 x 120GB - disk 7

Recommendations:
Buy as much memory as you can afford.
Buy a second 80GB drive to Raid 0 with disk 5 - (disk 6).
Replace disk 4 with an 80GB drive (sell the 60GB drive).

Other hardware required, but unspecified:
2 x NICs, min 100TX, recommend Gigabit for server at least.
Network hub, min 100TX compat, recommend switch - 1GB uplink.
2 x Cat5 networking cables (Gigabit verified), unspecified length.

Note: Until/unless you need to access the server from more than one
client, you can skip buying a hub/switch and just use crossover cable to
connect the machines together directly. You can always add a hub/switch
later (but bear in mind you'll need different cables).


Server:

Disk 1 - primary master:
Grub MBR
Linux System, ReiserFS, 40GB.
(Running Samba and/or NFS.)

Primary slave - DVD-ROM.

Disk 5 - secondary master:
User Data, ReiserFS, 80GB.

Disk 7 - secondary slave:
Linux Swap, 2GB.
Imaging partition, ReiserFS, 118GB.
(Perform regular image backups, using dd, of non-swap partitions from
disks 1, 2 & 3).

Disk 4 - USB External:
Data Backup from disk 5, ReiserFS, 60GB (80GB?) (compressed file backups).


Client:

Disk 2 - primary master:
Grub MBR & NT Bootsector.
Windows XP System, NTFS, 38GB.
Linux Swap, 2GB.

Primary slave - DVD-ROM.

Disk 3 - secondary master:
Linux System, ReiserFS, 38GB.
Windows swap, NTFS, 2GB.

Secondary slave - DVD+-RW


Implementation:

The partitions on disks 1 & 3 should be divided into the relevant Linux
mount points. Simply allow the Fedora installer to decide the allocation.

In order to install Fedora (Core 1) onto ReiserFS partitions do the
following:

Proceed with a main installation type (Desktop, Server etc). After the
install has finished, reboot from Fedora Disc 1 again, but this time type
"linux rescue" at the boot prompt. Do not attempt to "find" any Linux
installations. Type "cat /proc/partitions" and then use mkreiserfs on each
of the listed partitions on disk 3 (excluding the one NTFS partition). You
will then need to repeat the installation, but this time do not use an
install profile, manually specify the partitions you have just converted.

I haven't tried Fedora Core 2 yet, so I don't know if they have
implemented creating ReiserFS partitions at install time in that release.

If that is too much hassle, just stick with ext3 partitions.

Access to user data on the server provided by NFS and/or Samba for both
Windows and Linux clients. Disk imaging performed on a regular basis in
order to minimise downtime in the event of hardware failure or other
disaster. Possibility of configuring squid, apache, privoxy, sendmail,
iptables and other services on the server for client use.

Additional recommendations:
Consider moving the server to OpenBSD in the future.
Physically remove disk 4 (USB) when not in use. Store in another room.
Develop a backup policy and stick to it (simple 1 2 3 method will do).

Future expansion:
Upgrade disks 4, 5 and 6 in tandem, identical sizes.
Upgrade disk 7, whenever disks 1, 2 or 3 are upgraded.
(i.e. sizeof [7] >= sizeof [1+2+3])

Target analysis:

Server:

> System files - NTFS
Disk 1 (Using Linux/ReiserFS for server).

> Programs, Shared files, Documents, ... Windows swap files - NTFS
Disk 5 for shared files & documents (user data), programs under /usr on
disk 1, swapfile on disk 7/partition 1.

> MP3, Archival + Windows swap
Disk 5 for MP3 (user data), disk 4 for archival (data backup), Swap file
on disk 7/partition 1.

> Backup & Transfer - FAT
Disk 4 for file backup, disk 7/partition 2 for imaging, transfer through
network, filesystem irrelevant - using host system optimum (ReiserFS).


Client:

> System files - NTFS
Disk 2, partition 1

> Linux swap
Disk 2, partition 2

> Windows swap and Linux accessible
Disk 3, partition 2 (Note: do not use swap partitions for other purposes,
shared files accessed through server)

> Fedora Linux - Reiser FS
Disk 3, partition 1

Hope that helps,

-
[H]omer

PS - If you must Xpost, please set a followup.

(Followups set to alt.comp.hardware)