Difference between revisions of "Talk:Partitioning"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(SSD Alignment?: re)
(Suggestions for SSDs: rm closed)
 
(70 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Minimal partition sizes? ==
+
== Partition Alignment Verification ==
  
Please add the minimum sizes that are required to install Arch Linux distributions.  (Does it vary much arch to arch?) I have installed Arch Linux ARM on the 512 MB flash of a Marvell Kirkwood SoC.  Now I'm working with an Atom x86 system with 8GB to 16GB total storage.  What are the minimum number (names) and sizes required for the O/S partitions?  For my embedded systems, I usually separate the data partition from the O/S partition, and maybe I have a separate /var partition.  But I do not typically have a separate /boot partition, and I try to make all but the data partition as small as possible.
+
''[moved from [[Talk:Solid State Drives#Partition Alignment Verification]] -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 20:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)]''
  
Thanks.
+
On my system 'blockdev --getalignoff /dev/sda5' returns zero, even though the partition seems not to be aligned optimally:
 +
Disk /dev/sda: 465.8 GiB, 500107862016 bytes, 976773168 sectors
 +
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
 +
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
 +
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
 +
Disklabel type: dos
 +
Disk identifier: 0xd9a92553
 +
 +
Device    Boot    Start      End    Blocks  Id System
 +
/dev/sda1 *        2048  1026047    512000  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
 +
/dev/sda2        1026048 479475711 239224832  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
 +
/dev/sda3      946051072 976771071  15360000  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
 +
/dev/sda4      479475712 946051071 233287680  5 Extended
 +
/dev/sda5      479475775 518545791  19535008+ 83 Linux
 +
/dev/sda6      518545855 541984626  11719386  83 Linux
 +
/dev/sda7      541984690 557615871  7815591  82 Linux swap / Solaris
 +
/dev/sda8      557615935 946051071 194217568+ 83 Linux
  
[[User:LarryBaker|LarryBaker]] ([[User talk:LarryBaker|talk]]) 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
+
The command 'parted /dev/sda align-check optimal' gives the right message in my opinion: 'not aligned'. Should we replace blockdev command?
:Needed size depends on what packages are you going to install: do you need base-devel, do you need X etc. My current setup with X, graphical web browsers, the whole base-devel group, python, python2 etc. takes up just 3 GB on / (I don't have a separate /var).
 
:The minimal required packages will vary depending on what filesystem do you have installed etc., but if you install just the base group and remove the packages you know you don't need (e.g. reiserfsprogs if you don't use reiserfs) you should have a lean setup. You shouldn't create too tight partitions, always try to provide enough headroom for some [https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2013-February/024526.html unexpected situations]. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] ([[User talk:Karol|talk]]) 22:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 
  
 +
[[User:Plk|Plk]] ([[User talk:Plk|talk]]) 18:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  
== Btrfs partitioning ==
+
:It seems you're right. After reading the warning about cfdisk alignment ("Warning: The first partition created by cfdisk starts at sector 63, instead of the usual 2048. This can lead to reduced performance on SSD and advanced format (4k sector) drives. It will cause problems with GRUB2, but GRUB legacy and Syslinux should work fine."), I created the first partition of the SSD I was working on with cfdisk - thus creating a bad alignment (I checked with ''fdisk -l /dev/sda'', the first partition effectively starts at sector 63 and not 2048).
 +
:The ''blockdev --getalignoff /dev/sda1'' command returned zero (it shouldn't have) while your command ''parted /dev/sda align-check optimal'' returned 'not aligned', as expected.
 +
:It seems to be a bug of blockdev in ArchLinux, as of util-linux v.2.24.
 +
:I upgraded to util-linux v.2.25-3, and the problem is still present in blockdev. However, cfdisk has been entirely rewritten for util-linux 2.25 as described in this [http://karelzak.blogspot.fr/2014/06/new-cfdisk-util-linux-v225.html blog post] and now correctly starts the first partition at sector 2048 when creating it.
  
We have a [[Btrfs#Partitioning|Btrfs Partitioning]] section, but it is not included in this article. Are we excluding Btrfs for now since it is still technically in development? I'd like to add a reference to the [[Btrfs#Partitioning|Btrfs Partitioning]] instructions at the very least. As a new user I went for the longest time thinking that GPT and MBR were my only options, but I much prefer using Btrfs exclusively if I can. I added a reference for [[Btrfs#Partitioning|Btrfs Partitioning]] and cleaned up some of the wording in those instructions.  [[User:Dwightjl|Dwightjl]] ([[User talk:Dwightjl|talk]]) 06:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 
  
:Well done, I think it's better to just link to the specific articles from here instead of directly including full instructions. For example also all the detailed information on MBR and GPT should be merged to the respective articles and replaced with simple links here, to reduce duplication of content. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 14:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
+
:So should we edit the wiki page for recommanding upgrade to util-linux 2.25 in order to use cfdisk with correct partition alignment ? As util-linux integrates multiple essential softwares, I don't know if upgrading it will or not break something with the other utilities it includes.
 +
:In any case, I think we should disrecommend using blockdev to check partition alignment, and recommend using parted instead for the time being. Can anyone else confirm this bug, especially on other distributions ? We need to know if the problem is inherent to Arch's implementation of blockdev or to blockdev itself.
  
== SSD Alignment? ==
+
:--[[User:Irrodeus|Irrodeus]] ([[User talk:Irrodeus|talk]]) 01:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  
The information in this article does not match with the [[Solid State Drives#Partition Alignment]]. I am not an expert in this area, but my searching does lead me to think that this article is incorrect.
+
== Restructuring ==
# I am adding a factual dispute flag to this section.
 
# I suggest removing the section's content and instead pointing it to the "SSD Partition Alignment" article and section.
 
# If there are engineers that still argue that alignment is necessary, perhaps that can be discussed under the very limited discussion that has taken place here: [[Talk:Solid State Drives#Alignment]]. --[[User:AdamT|AdamT]] ([[User_talk:AdamT|Talk]]) 21:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 
  
:I don't think the information is conflicting, but I'd say the title is/was inappropriate - IMO it's more like ''an introduction to data addressing on a disk''. I think the best approach in this situation would be merging [[Solid State Drives#Partition Alignment]] into this page, generalizing also for HDDs (and especially for those with 4kiB sector size). -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 21:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
+
=== Example tables ===
 +
 
 +
[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Partitioning&diff=440209&oldid=438934] moved tables from the [[Beginners' guide]] to [[Partitioning#Partition_scheme]], however it didn't fit in too well so I've removed it for now.
 +
 
 +
However, I think the basic idea is a sound one, but perhaps more expansive. We could include suggested [[File systems]], as well as more complex examples such as {{ic|/var}} and GRUB Boot partitions.
 +
 
 +
See the updated tables from the BG below for reference. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 00:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
=== Table draft ===
 +
 
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
!colspan="5" | UEFI/GPT example layout
 +
|-
 +
! Mount point
 +
! Partition
 +
! [[w:GUID_Partition_Table#Partition_type_GUIDs|Partition type (GUID)]]
 +
! Bootable flag
 +
! Suggested size
 +
|-
 +
| /boot
 +
| /dev/sd'''x'''1
 +
| [[EFI System Partition]]
 +
| Yes
 +
| 260–512 MiB
 +
|-
 +
| [SWAP]
 +
| /dev/sd'''x'''2
 +
| Linux [[swap]]
 +
| No
 +
| More than 512 MiB
 +
|-
 +
| /
 +
| /dev/sd'''x'''3
 +
| Linux
 +
| No
 +
| Remainder of the device
 +
|-
 +
!colspan="5" | MBR/BIOS example layout
 +
|-
 +
! Mount point
 +
! Partition
 +
! [[w:Partition type|Partition type]]
 +
! Bootable flag
 +
! Suggested size
 +
|-
 +
| [SWAP]
 +
| /dev/sd'''x'''1
 +
| Linux [[swap]]
 +
| No
 +
| More than 512 MiB
 +
|-
 +
| /
 +
| /dev/sd'''x'''2
 +
| Linux
 +
| Yes
 +
| Remainder of the device
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
:I added these tables to the page. I also added one using a separate {{ic|/home}} since I imagine that is the most common scenario. I think 3 examples could be enough, but I am open to more.  -- [[User:Rdeckard|Rdeckard]] ([[User_talk:Rdeckard|talk]]) 18:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::Nice work. One thing I was considering is to have multiple small tables under the various partition sections (like /home), instead of a single large one. Thoughts? -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 18:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 +
::edit: I noticed you already split the tables; that leaves whether it makes sense to have them under sections like [[Partitioning#.2Fhome]] rather than [[Partitioning#Example layouts]]. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 19:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::All examples include the {{ic|/}} partition and swap. Avoiding duplication and forward references is probably one of the reasons why people invented [[w:appendix|appendix]]. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 19:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== mmcblk0p{1,2,3,4}, mmcblk0boot{0,1}, mmcblk0rpmb ==
 +
And my install usb showed up as sda instead.. Don't know how to best deal with that. "Boot" ones don't seem to provide disklabel type and identifier information, and are only 4MiB. My guess is to ignore them. {{ic|/dev/mmcblk0p3}} seems to be the one with windows on it.(ASUS Vivobook E200HA)[[User:Jasper1984|Jasper1984]] ([[User talk:Jasper1984|talk]]) 00:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 +
:Ended up just ignoring the {{ic|mmcblk0boot{0,1}}} entries, treating {{ic|mmcblk0p{1,2,3,4}}} as if were just sda, basically, it worked.  (dont see the rpmb volumes now) More specifically, didnt reformat the first partition, instead just putting different files there. Tried the bind-mount approach in [[EFI System Partition]], but ended up the more regular approach. (not sure why it didnt co-operate) Would suspect that {{ic|mmcblk0boot{0,1}}} dont matter much, but would suggest just reusing the first partition nevertheless..(really, little reason to reformat that?)[[User:Jasper1984|Jasper1984]] ([[User talk:Jasper1984|talk]]) 00:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:48, 18 September 2017

Partition Alignment Verification

[moved from Talk:Solid State Drives#Partition Alignment Verification -- Lahwaacz (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)]

On my system 'blockdev --getalignoff /dev/sda5' returns zero, even though the partition seems not to be aligned optimally:

Disk /dev/sda: 465.8 GiB, 500107862016 bytes, 976773168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0xd9a92553

Device    Boot     Start       End    Blocks  Id System
/dev/sda1 *         2048   1026047    512000   7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda2        1026048 479475711 239224832   7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda3      946051072 976771071  15360000   7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda4      479475712 946051071 233287680   5 Extended
/dev/sda5      479475775 518545791  19535008+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda6      518545855 541984626  11719386  83 Linux
/dev/sda7      541984690 557615871   7815591  82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda8      557615935 946051071 194217568+ 83 Linux

The command 'parted /dev/sda align-check optimal' gives the right message in my opinion: 'not aligned'. Should we replace blockdev command?

Plk (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems you're right. After reading the warning about cfdisk alignment ("Warning: The first partition created by cfdisk starts at sector 63, instead of the usual 2048. This can lead to reduced performance on SSD and advanced format (4k sector) drives. It will cause problems with GRUB2, but GRUB legacy and Syslinux should work fine."), I created the first partition of the SSD I was working on with cfdisk - thus creating a bad alignment (I checked with fdisk -l /dev/sda, the first partition effectively starts at sector 63 and not 2048).
The blockdev --getalignoff /dev/sda1 command returned zero (it shouldn't have) while your command parted /dev/sda align-check optimal returned 'not aligned', as expected.
It seems to be a bug of blockdev in ArchLinux, as of util-linux v.2.24.
I upgraded to util-linux v.2.25-3, and the problem is still present in blockdev. However, cfdisk has been entirely rewritten for util-linux 2.25 as described in this blog post and now correctly starts the first partition at sector 2048 when creating it.


So should we edit the wiki page for recommanding upgrade to util-linux 2.25 in order to use cfdisk with correct partition alignment ? As util-linux integrates multiple essential softwares, I don't know if upgrading it will or not break something with the other utilities it includes.
In any case, I think we should disrecommend using blockdev to check partition alignment, and recommend using parted instead for the time being. Can anyone else confirm this bug, especially on other distributions ? We need to know if the problem is inherent to Arch's implementation of blockdev or to blockdev itself.
--Irrodeus (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring

Example tables

[1] moved tables from the Beginners' guide to Partitioning#Partition_scheme, however it didn't fit in too well so I've removed it for now.

However, I think the basic idea is a sound one, but perhaps more expansive. We could include suggested File systems, as well as more complex examples such as /var and GRUB Boot partitions.

See the updated tables from the BG below for reference. -- Alad (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Table draft

UEFI/GPT example layout
Mount point Partition Partition type (GUID) Bootable flag Suggested size
/boot /dev/sdx1 EFI System Partition Yes 260–512 MiB
[SWAP] /dev/sdx2 Linux swap No More than 512 MiB
/ /dev/sdx3 Linux No Remainder of the device
MBR/BIOS example layout
Mount point Partition Partition type Bootable flag Suggested size
[SWAP] /dev/sdx1 Linux swap No More than 512 MiB
/ /dev/sdx2 Linux Yes Remainder of the device
I added these tables to the page. I also added one using a separate /home since I imagine that is the most common scenario. I think 3 examples could be enough, but I am open to more. -- Rdeckard (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Nice work. One thing I was considering is to have multiple small tables under the various partition sections (like /home), instead of a single large one. Thoughts? -- Alad (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
edit: I noticed you already split the tables; that leaves whether it makes sense to have them under sections like Partitioning#.2Fhome rather than Partitioning#Example layouts. -- Alad (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
All examples include the / partition and swap. Avoiding duplication and forward references is probably one of the reasons why people invented appendix. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

mmcblk0p{1,2,3,4}, mmcblk0boot{0,1}, mmcblk0rpmb

And my install usb showed up as sda instead.. Don't know how to best deal with that. "Boot" ones don't seem to provide disklabel type and identifier information, and are only 4MiB. My guess is to ignore them. /dev/mmcblk0p3 seems to be the one with windows on it.(ASUS Vivobook E200HA)Jasper1984 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ended up just ignoring the mmcblk0boot{0,1} entries, treating mmcblk0p{1,2,3,4} as if were just sda, basically, it worked. (dont see the rpmb volumes now) More specifically, didnt reformat the first partition, instead just putting different files there. Tried the bind-mount approach in EFI System Partition, but ended up the more regular approach. (not sure why it didnt co-operate) Would suspect that mmcblk0boot{0,1} dont matter much, but would suggest just reusing the first partition nevertheless..(really, little reason to reformat that?)Jasper1984 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)