How would you partition on 4GB+4GB on an Eee PC?

[xen_yasai]

I have the Asus Eee PC 701 with 4GB internal storage, but I have also bought a 4GB SDHC card which is just formated with fat32. I thought to put the 4GB SDHC to better use and when I reinstall F9 or wait until F10 is released I would kind of combine the internal and the SDHC.

The problem is how should I partition these drives?
I'm also considering putting the folders/partitions who are written to often (as swap) on the SDHC.

This is my suggestion so far:

Internal 4GB
/
/sys

SDHC 4GB
/home
/tmp
swap

Any suggestions?

[forkbomb]

I don't know if Fedora's going to be good for that setup. Depending on how much memory it has I'd skip the swap partition.

Then I'd probably put / on the Internal and /home on the SD card. But you should probably format the SD card as ext3 because FAT32 for /home partitions is probably not the greatest because FAT is not POSIX compatible (you'll have issues with permissions and ownership - apps might not work right).

Or, if you want to leave FAT32 on the SD card (might be nice if you want to pull the SD card and put it in another machine). Then mount the SD card to something like /data and store personal stuff there.

Also consider LVM.

As for squeezing Fedora onto 4GB, I just don't know. Let's just say it'll have to be a light install. Consider the XFCE spin. http://spins.fedoraproject.org/

I'd personally consider something lighter like Puppy or DSL.

[xen_yasai]

Originally Posted by tjvanwyk

I don't know if Fedora's going to be good for that setup. Depending on how much memory it has I'd skip the swap partition.

It has 512MB RAM

Originally Posted by tjvanwyk

Then I'd probably put / on the Internal and /home on the SD card. But you should probably format the SD card as ext3 because FAT32 for /home partitions is probably not the greatest because FAT is not POSIX compatible (you'll have issues with permissions and ownership - apps might not work right).

Of course, I woulf format the SDHC to ext3. ;-)

Originally Posted by tjvanwyk

As for squeezing Fedora onto 4GB, I just don't know. Let's just say it'll have to be a light install. Consider the XFCE spin. http://spins.fedoraproject.org/

I'd personally consider something lighter like Puppy or DSL.

Nah, F9 is running perfectly on my Asus Eee PC. I'm actually using GNOME.

I tried Ubuntu-eee. Very nice, but I've mostly used Fedora (Red Hat) and grown fond and used to this system.

[forkbomb]

Originally Posted by xen_yasai

Of course, I woulf format the SDHC to ext3. ;-)

Okay. In that case I'd definitely do:
Internal:
/
SD:
/home

I'd skip the SWAP. If you strip the install down in terms of services you shouldn't need to swap that much anyway. I have 512MB of memory on my laptop and actually use my 1GB swap about once in a blue moon. (EDIT: To be fair, I am primarily a fluxboxer and occasional use Xfce)

I'd still rather not use GNOME on that setup because it always strikes me as being a bloated pig with crippled functionality. I'm a person who wouldn't use GNOME even if I had a quad-core system with 16GB of DDR3.

[xen_yasai]

Cool. Good to know that I might not need the swap.

I like GNOME, but I'm also a fan of Fluxbox. Haven't used Xfce too much, but I'll look into it.

I would like to put more on the SDHC though, as I don't need so much as 4GB for just home.

How do this look?
Or should I have usr on the Internal?

Internal 4GB
/

SDHC 4GB
/home
/tmp
/usr
swap ?

[JN4OldSchool]

Originally Posted by tjvanwyk

I'd still rather not use GNOME on that setup because it always strikes me as being a bloated pig with crippled functionality. I'm a person who wouldn't use GNOME even if I had a quad-core system with 16GB of DDR3.

I do have a quad-core system with 4GB of DDR2 and I wouldnt touch Gnome or KDE with a 10 foot pole. But then again, I am not using Fedora on that computer anymore either....

Kill the bloat

[PatMcLJr]

LVM ?

at least it's easy

my guess,
Pat Jr.

[xen_yasai]

Originally Posted by PatMcLJr

LVM ?

at least it's easy

my guess,
Pat Jr.

That might be a good solution.
What is the benefits of using LVM actually if I may ask?

[PatMcLJr]

it treats all your disks as one big mount point
back your data, when LVM has a hiccup it's not pritty

Best of Luck,
Pat Jr.

[forkbomb]

The disadvantage is that it has a performance overhead. In most situations, though, the performance overhead of LVM is minimal and if you need LVM it's a small bullet to bite.