Partitions?

Hi.

I'm convinced to replace my dead thinkpad with a powerbook 12"... but
now I'm concerned about two issues... I'm using linux since 97, so... I
could be quite naive.

At the first boot, can I partition the hard disk to have /Users (home
directories) on another partition?

Can I move on another partition the swap file (I know mac doesn't use a
swap partition)?

Sensei <> writes:

> At the first boot, can I partition the hard disk to have /Users (home
> directories) on another partition?

Not really at first boot, but it is certainly possible to
partition the drive and move stuff around.

It's a huge pain in the ass and there's no good reason to do it,
though.

So don't bother.

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

wrote:
> Not really at first boot, but it is certainly possible to
> partition the drive and move stuff around.

Perfect!

> It's a huge pain in the ass and there's no good reason to do it,
> though.
>
> So don't bother.
>

Mmh... the main reason for doing that is the fragmentation problem,
since /Applications and / shouldn't be touched so much... while home
directories will be quite busy... not talking about the shrinking and
enlarging swap file...

Did you try to benchmark the change? I'd really like to know if it's
worth it...

I'm used to really ugly systems, the word ``pain in the ass'' does not
belong to osx

G.T. wrote:
> If you mean the first boot after install, yes. Google Netinfo Manager and
> moving user directories.

Very nice! Thanks, netinfo is (more or less) what I wanted.

> There are several websites explaining the various methods for moving the
> swap file on Jaguar and Panther. For Tiger I don't know yet but I'm sure
> it's still possible.

That's a problem... I think my powerbook will come with 10.4...

On Mon, 9 May 2005 12:17:08 -0400, Sensei wrote
(in article <82Mfe.875522$>):

> wrote:

>> Not really at first boot, but it is certainly possible to partition
>> the drive and move stuff around.
>
> Perfect!
>
>> It's a huge pain in the ass and there's no good reason to do it,
>> though.
>>
>> So don't bother.
>>
>
> Mmh... the main reason for doing that is the fragmentation problem,
> since /Applications and / shouldn't be touched so much... while home
> directories will be quite busy... not talking about the shrinking and
> enlarging swap file...

Mac OS X defragments files less than 20 MB on the fly, so there is no
advantage there. And the system optimizes the file location on the drive
to give the biggest performance for frequently accessed files.

> Did you try to benchmark the change? I'd really like to know if it's
> worth it...

I haven't read one article that makes a good case for partitioning the
boot drive with Mac OS X. It's mostly a pain in the ass for no tangible
benefits.

> I'm used to really ugly systems, the word ``pain in the ass'' does
> not belong to osx

Very true. One of the best things about OS X is that you don't need to
worry about the things that you're already worrying about

Sensei <> writes:
> wrote:

> > It's a huge pain in the ass and there's no good reason to do it,
> > though. So don't bother.

Okay, maybe not a *huge* PITA, but it's generally unnecessary.

> Mmh... the main reason for doing that is the fragmentation problem,

There is no fragmentation problem. See, for example:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=25668

http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html

and the especially interesting:

http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/apme/fragmentation/


If fragmentation is the only reason you want to partition,
you're definitely wasting your time.



--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

John Drako wrote:
> Mac OS X defragments files less than 20 MB on the fly, so there is no
> advantage there. And the system optimizes the file location on the drive
> to give the biggest performance for frequently accessed files.

Good to know, I have no real low-level experience with hfs/hfs+.

> I haven't read one article that makes a good case for partitioning the
> boot drive with Mac OS X. It's mostly a pain in the ass for no tangible
> benefits.

Ok, I will leave the partition as it is.

> Very true. One of the best things about OS X is that you don't need to
> worry about the things that you're already worrying about

That's why I'm buying a mac

Sensei wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
>
>> If you mean the first boot after install, yes. Google Netinfo Manager
>> and
>> moving user directories.
>
>
> Very nice! Thanks, netinfo is (more or less) what I wanted.
>
>> There are several websites explaining the various methods for moving the
>> swap file on Jaguar and Panther. For Tiger I don't know yet but I'm sure
>> it's still possible.
>
>
> That's a problem... I think my powerbook will come with 10.4...

I've been using an iBook for two years and experimented with the
different file systems and some of the partitioning schemes suggested
for swap space etc. and have ended up with a simple single partition
installation. The hassle of messing around with different partitions
which ususually end up being the wrong size just isn't worth it.

IMO,

Andy

On 09/05/2005 12:32 PM, John Drako wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2005 12:17:08 -0400, Sensei wrote
> (in article <82Mfe.875522$>):
[...]
> I haven't read one article that makes a good case for partitioning the
> boot drive with Mac OS X. It's mostly a pain in the ass for no tangible
> benefits.
>
The last time I did a clean install, I made a little partition for OS 9,
which I keep around for games and such. For some reason even a virgin
install of OS 9 would occasionally corrupt the drive when I booted from
it, causing the next boot to OS X to fail. I'd be repairing the drive
all the time. Now OS 9 can fubar itself all it wants and I don't have
to care. I can wipe and reinstall it with impunity, as well.

This is the only reason I have for having more than one partition.

>
>>I'm used to really ugly systems, the word ``pain in the ass'' does
>>not belong to osx
>
>
> Very true. One of the best things about OS X is that you don't need to
> worry about the things that you're already worrying about
>
In this case, having an OS 9 partition means I can stop worrying about it.

In article <>,
John Drako <> wrote:

> I haven't read one article that makes a good case for partitioning the
> boot drive with Mac OS X. It's mostly a pain in the ass for no tangible
> benefits.

What about keeping the old OS version on hand should a version upgrade
affect task-critical applications? I'd like to be able to boot up either
in Panther or Tiger (or Tiger and cat-of-the-future) until kinks are
worked out with the new version.

Van
--
Van Bagnol / n p c o m p l e t e at bagnol dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels "parang lumalakad ako soo loob ng panaginip"
....thinks "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"