#1 2017-03-24 17:44:02

geekosupremo

Member

Registered: 2016-04-27

Posts: 169

Folders or Partitions? Performace difference?

Situation:

Server - "typical" partition scheme
--> /root
  |--> /swap
  |--> /temp
  |--> /var
  |--> /home (rest of disk)

Would it make a differnce to resize the /home to make a few more partitions or just mount some folders from with in /home for samba sharing?

Horizon_Brave

Operating System: Linux-Nettrix

Registered: 2015-10-18

Posts: 1,473

Re: Folders or Partitions? Performace difference?

I think another consideration is space. The  thing about making the different partitions is that you then have to keep an eye on them individually if you're talking about mass storage.  While not a gain in access speed I think file system operations like chkdsk etc, goes a bit quicker when multi partitions are used.  Also if you hose your /home directory you'd potentially affect all contents inside, with it separated out, you mitigate losses 

---

"I have not failed, I have found 10,000 ways that will not work" -Edison

geekosupremo

Member

Registered: 2016-04-27

Posts: 169

Re: Folders or Partitions? Performace difference?

That makes sense. Thanks!

Head_on_a_Stick

Member

From: London

Registered: 2015-09-29

Posts: 9,067

Website

Re: Folders or Partitions? Performace difference?

I use subvolumes for /home and the various different filesystem roots in my btrfs partition.

EDIT: there is also LVM if you prefer stable filesystems

Found a good link:

https://www.debian.org/releases/jessie/ … pc.html.en

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2017-06-02 20:52:51)

---

Para todos todo, para nosotros nada

ohnonot

...again

Registered: 2015-09-29

Posts: 5,592

Re: Folders or Partitions? Performace difference?

i'm not sure if so much partitioning (as per post #1) is still common usage even on large servers.
if you have terabytes of storage, HoaS' advice probably makes sense, otherwise... :shrugs: the standard scheme ('/',swap,/home) is probably enough.