How To Partition First SuSE Install?

[eulenspiegel]

Hello World !

OK folks, I'm a newbie to Linux. Now I outed myself
I do know my Unix servers, as I do work as a systems Admin all day long.
But I just now "saw the light" and switched to Linux and now I'm trying to figure out how to best partition my new system.

I want to install it on a 4GB laptop with 2x160GB drives and one primary Windoze partition (sorry, but I need that one for sure).

I'd like to have one partition for data files and one for my system stuff.
Does it make sense to have another one for application programs or am I thinking to much "Windoze like" here?

Can I even tell the Linux setup program where to put the different directories like that?

[rong]

Hello World !

Helllo

I want to install it on a 4GB laptop with 2x160GB drives and one primary Windoze partition (sorry, but I need that one for sure).
I'd like to have one partition for data files and one for my system stuff.

Install Win first to make life a lot easier. Naturally you'll want to leave empty partitions for linux. You can partition in just about any fashion you so desire, but the most common scheme is to have a Primary Swap ( a common rule of thumb is to double your ram but that's really not necessary these days so just keep it around 1G), a partition for / (the root partition) and a partition for /home. Keeping the /home partition seperate is good in case the OS gets corrupted. If you want to have additional partitions for /var /testing /data, whatever have at it, but not for applications (most of which will end up in your /home directory). You can use logical partitions if you really need to get beyond the four primary partition barrier.

Can I even tell the Linux setup program where to put the different directories like that?

Absolutely. Linux has excellent partitioning tools and you can take the 'automatic' route or the 'manual' route.

[eulenspiegel]

Thanks for your reply.
It will surely help.

But on a side note I do have to say that I disagree strongly with the anti-64bit msg contained on that link in your footnote.

It basically claims that only "Apple like cool freaks" would go for 64bit.
First I do have to say that after years of denouncing them as mere IT yuppies I have by now grown to have a lot of respect for the choices those Apple folks made.
After all I just gave up my own decade long "addiction" to my old Operating System because I want more, more. More features & performance.

And then I'm also a System's Admin and I know for a fact that companies chose 64bit platforms en' mase by now.
Not a single CIO who wants to hold on to his seat would buy a 32bit Server platform any more these days.

And then there are the plain technical reasons.
E.g. I ended up having tons of shared memory exhaustion problems on my old system and I'm tired of the limitations that come with a 32bit address space.

And last not least I just spend over $4000.-- on my new 4GB Core 2 Duo Laptop and I'm in no mood to end up being able to use barely ~3GB of that RAM real estate.

Not to mention that I'm tired of playing "catch up", and for once want to be ahead of the curve and wait for others to catch up.

Rather than installing tons of 32bit software which then only waits to be rendered "outdated", forcing me to upgrade or switch all the time.

Fact is that 32bit is on its way out, headed the same way Motorola 68k or RISC CPUs have gone.
64bit is the future and there is no reason to sit by idly anymore on the sidelines now that stable 64bit versions of Linux are available.
And since even Windoze has gone 64bit only tech Dinosaurs would still advocate 32bit flavors.

And 64bit supposedly to much Cutting Edge?
Heck if I'd be afraid of tech challenges then I'd move over to Windoze instead of what is essentially still a Hacker Operating System - Linux

PS: Of course all my arguments end up on the "nil" device if you're still running on a 32bit HW platform.
In that case you're just stuck were you are...and you might even like your ride.
But then you won't be leading the pack in that Tin Lizzy of yours

[gogalthorp]

I chose 64 bit and I am sorry. Ok 64 bit Suse works fine but you do run into little problems. Like Skype is 32 bit only and the audio connection is flacky. This would not be the case if I chose a 32 bit OS. There are a lot of little problems like this if you choose 64 bit. Another one is that my Mplayer is 64 bit and Firefox is 32bit so they don't play well together. If I chose a 64bit compile of Firefox there are other plugins that would not work like Flash. No end to the little things. For the most part all runs well and if you really need the extended address space, like you are serving large databases to hundreds of people or doing intense video editing then sure go 64 bit. but for normal desktop usage there is absolutly no need and life will be easier for you in the long run if you stick to 32 bit!!!!

Since you are installing on a laptop you might want to find out if you can get your WIFI drivers in 64 bit versions.......

[eulenspiegel]

Hi gogalthorp,

Yeah, I have to admit that I'm a power hog as indeed folks have to understand that I always tend to argue from that position.
And specially with operating systems its ez to forget in the days of multi-megabyte "hello world" windoze one-liners that there are still (some) people running their IT world on x486 machines

But I am working as a Systems Admin and yes as such I also simulate GigaByte Client/Server DBs on my laptop.
Worked fine on my old system until I started to run into those damn "shared memory exhausted" issues.
And now I can't even start a single VirtualPC session w/o stuff starting to break somewhere else.

Ah, yes Video Editing. I started to record TONS of video files and only now did I find out that most of them are unusable, because they are larger than 2GB each.
I can not re-record them and in many cases they are even life shots I made.
I never, ever want to experience the frustration of having the data right in front of me and yet not being able to access it simply because my system can't handle stuff larger than 2GB!!

Yes you are3 right, there are many "small things" that still don't work right in 32bit.
But I do now that 64bit SLED is fully supported on my system (guarentee from Novell) and I also know the speed with which the 64bit train moves into town.
So I would say that by this time next year most of those "small issues" will have been reseolved.
And as soon as Microsoft starts pre-loading 64bit Windoze Vista on consumer PCs, the Linux world will have no choice but to follow lock step.

Either that or be left behind...

[gogalthorp]

Hi gogalthorp,
And as soon as Microsoft starts pre-loading 64bit Windoze Vista on consumer PCs, the Linux world will have no choice but to follow lock step.

Either that or be left behind...

Actually Linux is far ahead of Windoz in 64 Bit stuff. But you might notice from my previous post most if not all the problems are due to propritary software needed for most desktop type usage Skype, Flash, hardware drivers etc. not being available in 64 bit Linux versions even though Linux has supported 64 bits far longer then Windoz. For the most part the OSS stuff is available in 64 bit and runs fine. Also in Suse you can for the most part run 32 bit stuff if you must but it can have some side effects. Such as in my case Skype runs but sometimes must be restarted because of audio breakup. This appears to be a 32 bit / 64 bit issue.

So if you have the need to run 64bit great but be prepared for some possible 32bit/64bit conflicts this is also true of Windoz.

I run 32 bit XP in a VMware server on my 64bit Suse with out problems.

I hope you are right about the emergence of 64 bit as main stream in the near future but to be honest I just don't see it happening soon. Oh well.

[eulenspiegel]

Trust me, in the Server World pretty much everybody has already moved to 64bit.
The Desktop is next