Ask Ubuntu is a question and answer site for Ubuntu users and developers. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Possible Duplicate:
What's your recommendation on drive partitioning schemes for a desktop and home server?
Is Btrfs in Maverick considered stable?

Bonus: What is the "best" filesystem for "general" use?

Bonus 2: If btrfs is supposedly "better" than ext3/4, why isn't it the default?

Bonus 3: Will creating a separate boot partition reduce boot time?

I currently have it set up as:

  • ?G Other Stuff
  • 4G Swap
  • 10G root ext4
  • 17G home btrfs
share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Marco Ceppi Jun 5 '11 at 20:06

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

you should ask multiple questions if you find they are sufficiently different. There's no harm in asking two questions at a time, you will get better answers this way. You'll find that both your question have been answered before at the link from Jorge Castro and…. Don't worry if this question is going to get closed for this reason. – Stefano Palazzo Dec 8 '10 at 14:23
up vote 9 down vote accepted

There is no best way to partition a drive as such. Of course it depends on your set-up. If you have a complicated or odd server system, you may want to spend a lot of time thinking about this. If your current configuration works, leave it be.

  • You will not gain a lot by making an effort.

But this is the important bit:

  • The default, i.e. what the ubuntu installer chooses for you if you select erase entire drive is heavily tested by millions of users. It will work very well.

The default file system in Ubuntu currently is ext4. This is what that partitioning looks like on one of my virtual machines: alt text
This works extremely well

Bonus 2: If btrfs is supposedly "better" than ext3/4, why isn't it the default?

  • There are things that are better about btrfs compared to ext4, and vice versa. Keep in mind that ext4 is, also, on the bleeding edge of file systems. It's brand new and very advanced. Btrfs is not magical. :-)

  • It may very well become the default soon; we'll see.

  • Here's the technical bit about btrfs's cool features (this list is copied verbatim from  btrfs):

    • Online volume growth and shrinking
    • Online block device addition and removal
    • Online defragmentation
    • Online balancing (movement of objects between block devices to balance load)
    • Transparent compression (currently zlib)
    • Subvolumes (separately-mountable filesystem roots)
    • Snapshots (writeable, copy-on-write copies of subvolumes)
    • File cloning (copy-on-write on individual files, or byte ranges thereof)
    • Object-level (RAID1-like) mirroring, (RAID0-like) striping
    • Checksums on data and metadata (currently CRC-32C)
    • In-place conversion (with rollback) from ext3/4 to Btrfs
    • File system seeding (Btrfs on read-only storage used as a copy-on-write backing for a writeable Btrfs)
    • User-defined transactions
    • Block discard support (reclaims space on some virtualization setups and improves wear leveling on SSDs by notifying the underlying device that storage is no longer in use)

    (my emphasis)

    If you care about and use any of the above, btrfs will be a great boon. It's, after the oracle/sun merger, going to be what  ZFS should have always been: Implemented. :)

Bonus 3: Will creating a separate boot partition reduce boot time?

  • No. Boot time is mostly waiting for the magnetic seek-head in the hard drive, you can gain very little indeed by changing any configuration at all. Partitioning the drive differently will do not much good.

  • You will possibly hear miracle stories of people decreasing their boot time by putting /boot right at the very beginning of the disk (where the platters are "smaller", so to speak). There will be about a 50% decrease in seek times at the very inner part of the disk compared to the very outside. Making an effort to put /boot there is futile. It's will be close to the beginning anyway, no need to bother with that. You should know this though, it makes sense to put the operating system first, and data last.

share|improve this answer
Wow. Thanks... that's one of the longest, best and most detailed answers I've ever gotten. – aviraldg Dec 8 '10 at 13:48

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.