RE: Linux Loaded on 486...what now

Can't say as I know the pros for manually creating each partition as opposed
to using the simplified partitioning scheme the workstation install
utilizes. I can tell you of the downside to lots of smaller partitions. .
. It is easy to have a partition run out of space when you install many
packages or source and library files. I have had this happen on systems
twice that had 1+ gig hard drives and were partitioned as you mentioned. The
only advantage I can think of for many small partitions would be if you had
a bunch of small drives and wanted to use them together. Then you could
assign a partition per drive.

The file structure on a workstation or custom install are identical, it is
the partitioning schemes that are different. Even though the workstation
install only uses 2 partitions you still get the full file system structure
with the directories like:
/
/usr
/usr/local
/usr/src
/etc
/boot
. . . . on and on

It doesn't seem to matter whether you make all the partitions or just a
small /boot and everything else in a single / partition the files are all
installed into the correct location in the directory tree. You don't need to
move anything.


Tim
[Denver, CO]

> From: "Patrick Huss" <patrick@...>
>
> In looking over the packages I need to add to equal the
> workstation install,
> I've decided the best option would be to just go back and do a workststion
> install. The question I have is this - all of the MANY instructions I've
> read on LINUX installation recommend partitioning the disk something like
> /100M , /usr 200M , /usr/src200M , etc.; what then is the drawback(s) of
> using the very basic filestructure created by Workstation install? Also,
> when you do partition the disk and do a custom install, how does linux
> distribute the installation? In other words, do the various packages and
> components get placed on their respective partitions automatically? Do you
> have to relocate them later?
> Patrick
>