minimum "/" partition size

[Default User]

On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 14:21 +1000, James Gray wrote:
> On 22/06/2007, at 1:48 PM, Default User wrote:
> 
> > Thanks to Mr. Gray, Mr Richter, and Mr. Lockwood for the advice. Just
> > one question, though. Why would a separate /boot partition be ext2
> > (non-journaled) rather than ext3 (journaled). Wouldn't ext3 be more
> > robust?
> 
> Felix answered this well, I'll just add that ext3 is just ext2 with a  
> journal.  Unfortunately that journal occupies disk space too - so the  
> total overhead for ext2 vs ext3 makes the journalled option a little  
> less attractive on a partition so rarely written to.  Another to  
> remember about /boot  - kernels are only getting bigger.  Back in ye  
> olde days before the 2.0 linux kernel, you could away with a boot  
> partition that was positively tiny by today's standards (ie, under  
> 10MB).  These days, to comfortably handle a running 2.6, plus a  
> backup (previous) 2.6 PLUS a "rescue" kernel, you need upwards of  
> 100MB!  So setting a /boot partition between 100-200MB is a good idea  
> for future-proofing your setup.
> 
> Let us know how your system works out :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> James

Thanks to all for your advice. Just wanted to let you kno whow it went.
I reinstalled doing 

Device   Partition   FileSystem   Mounted at  Size
=================================================================
hda1     primary     ext2         /boot       1GB
hda2     primary     ext3         /           37GB
hda3     primary     swap         swap        2GB

Seems to work okay, still getting error messages (mostly complaining
about NetworkManager) on shutdown, but that's another problem for
another day. 

BTW, the Ubuntu live-cd installer is excruciatingly, painfully slow on
older equipment.  Just a note FWIW.