openSUSE on 20gb SSD: which party should get a partition on another hd?

On 2013-07-13, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> On 2013-07-13 13:16, flymail wrote:
>> … and decide which version you’d prefer.
>
> GUI :stuck_out_tongue:
>

I quote from http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/146694-partition-extended-logical-drives.html :

If there are 3 existing Primary partitions on the HDD / SSD already, the fourth partition created using Windows disk
management will be an Extended partition by default.

So if you want to use to the GUI version, you can only create an extended partition if you make it the fourth. If I
wanted such a patronising application to make such decisions for me, then I would have bought a Mac. Have you? :stuck_out_tongue:

On 2013-07-14 13:20, flymail wrote:
> On 2013-07-13, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
>> On 2013-07-13 13:16, flymail wrote:
>>> … and decide which version you’d prefer.
>>
>> GUI :stuck_out_tongue:
>>
>
> I quote from http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/146694-partition-extended-logical-drives.html :
>
>

> If there are 3 existing Primary partitions on the HDD / SSD already, the fourth partition created using Windows disk
> management will be an Extended partition by default.
>

>
> So if you want to use to the GUI version, you can only create an extended partition if you make it the fourth. If I
> wanted such a patronising application to make such decisions for me, then I would have bought a Mac. Have you? :stuck_out_tongue:

Ok, I’ll bite.

I’m creating a new virtual hard disk to test partition creation from
Windows using native windows tools, in my virtual W7 install.

Ok, created 1 6GB SCSI disk. I start the “disk administrator”
(translating from Spanish). First task is to initialize the disk, and
I’m offered MBR or GPT. I’m surprised.

I don’t see how to create a partition, I only see the option to create a
“simple volume”. I can choose size, format (ntfs/fat/fat32/), letter,
compression. Apparently I can not choose primary or extended. It is a
wizard, as typical on Windows.

I create a second “volume” of 500 MB, which is their name for partition.
No extended offered.

I create a third “volume” of 500MB. No extended offered.

I create a fourth “volume” of 500MB. No extended offered. However…
when applied, an extended partition has been automatically created,
holding the rest of the disk, and inside there is a logical volume of 500MB.

So yes, you are correct, you can not manually choose partition types
with the Windows graphical tool. It is a wizard and it does the choosing
for you.

However, I can resize those volumes, or remove them. I removed the 3
primary partitions, then tried to resize the extended. It accepted, but
then warned that the disk would be converted to “dynamic volume”, which
I refused.

diskpart.exe, which is a “console” application can. I erased the
partition table (clean command), then created an extended partition on
the entire disk (command: “create partition extended”).

At this point I exited, and the disk administrator GUI was happy to
create logical volumes inside.

Interesting :slight_smile:


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 12.3 x86_64 “Dartmouth” at Telcontar)

On 2013-07-14, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> So yes, you are correct, you can not manually choose partition types
> with the Windows graphical tool. It is a wizard and it does the choosing
> for you.

Since this is my 500th post, I think it only appropriate to answer: Of course I’m right!

On 2013-07-14, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> At this point I exited, and the disk administrator GUI was happy to
> create logical volumes inside.

The Disk Management GUI in Windows 2000/XP allowed the user decide between primary and extended partitions (as well as
logical) and bizarrely this choice was removed from Windows Vista/7. When people complained about this the official
response from Microsoft was to use DISKPART since they admitted that was the only way. You still prefer the GUI? :-p

On 2013-07-14, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> Ok, I’ll bite.

You’re too much of a gentlemen… your response was more a nibble than a bite!

On 2013-07-14 16:24, flymail wrote:
> On 2013-07-14, Carlos E. R. <> wrote:
>> So yes, you are correct, you can not manually choose partition types
>> with the Windows graphical tool. It is a wizard and it does the choosing
>> for you.
>
> Since this is my 500th post, I think it only appropriate to answer: Of course I’m right!

:slight_smile:

> On 2013-07-14, Carlos E. R. <rote:
>> At this point I exited, and the disk administrator GUI was happy to
>> create logical volumes inside.
>
> The Disk Management GUI in Windows 2000/XP allowed the user decide between primary and extended partitions (as well as
> logical) and bizarrely this choice was removed from Windows Vista/7. When people complained about this the official
> response from Microsoft was to use DISKPART since they admitted that was the only way. You still prefer the GUI? :-p

Well, you see I returned to it after creating an extended with diskpart O:-)

I find diskpart powerful but awkward. If I can, I would use gparted.

>
> On 2013-07-14, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
>> Ok, I’ll bite.
>
> You’re too much of a gentlemen… your response was more a nibble than a bite!

:slight_smile:

Now I wonder… could we use diskpart when asking people to print their
partition table from windows when necessary?


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 12.3 x86_64 “Dartmouth” at Telcontar)

On 2013-07-14, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> Now I wonder… could we use diskpart when asking people to print their
> partition table from windows when necessary?

You may recall the matter was discussed at length in the thread:

http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/install-boot-login/482409-use-diskpart-within-windows.html

The partition ordering is identical to `fdisk -l’.

My experience with DISKPART is that while it doesn’t provide exactly the same information as `fdisk -l’, it’s very
straightforward to work out everything sufficient to advise people by application of a bit of common sense. I’m well
aware I failed to convince others (including you) this was the case and I no longer see any point trying.

On 2013-07-15 10:54, flymail wrote:
> On 2013-07-14, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
>> Now I wonder… could we use diskpart when asking people to print their
>> partition table from windows when necessary?
>
> You may recall the matter was discussed at length in the thread:

I remember, but not the details nor the conclusion. My memory is not
that good, sorry, so that I can ask a question twice O:-)


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 12.3 x86_64 “Dartmouth” at Telcontar)

:wink: From a gui user.

As the notebook is running windows I would guess that the install is as per usual except that c\programfiles and the users desktop are on the hard drive as I too don’t think that 20gb is big enough to hold a typical windows installation. However they may have some or all of the standard applications it comes with on the ssd.

As it’s a new machine I would advise using it for a while before changing anything to get some idea of what performance it has. It might be one of the low power cpu types. It might not have much memory etc etc. This might influence choices on a Linux installation. Ideally need to know more about it.

Installing Linux
My machine is set up in a similar fashion to what the OP wants to achieve only I use discs and only run Linux. When the OP installs opensuse it will suggest a partitioning layout and I assume dual booting. Have to assume as haven’t done that for a long time. I doubt if there will be much in the line of spare space on the ssd. One option is to just accept the suggested partitioning. It will create all that are needed automatically and for some one who is new to this it can be the best option. My recollection is that it might be a bit greedy so you may want to change what it intends to do using edit partitions to increase the size of the space left for windows. Best explained by what the OP originally asked about.

Currently my root directory goes to a single disk with 2 partitions on it / and swap. Normally I have swap on a different disk. The space for / is 28gb and even though I have rather a lot of applications installed the space used is only 15gb including 3gb temp as I don’t clean it out. My home directory is on another disc that contains 6ogb. There is also 250gb on a nas. This sort of set up is achieved by using custom partitioning during install. It’s easy to do providing some one is aware of what partitions are needed.

The custom partitioning will show the discs in the system so to part install on the ssd identify it, highlight it and double click or edit/create partition. This will bring up the partition. It will assume all of the space is going to be used and probably show / as the directory and ext4 for the format. Click on the / drop down and one of the options will mention boot, select that and set a suitable size. :X Can’t remember a suitable size other than it’s small. Maybe some one else will suggest one or use google for suggestions. I’m assuming that the machine bios is set to boot off the ssd. The boot could also be put on the hard drive in the same way. I think the button to complete this op is marked finish. BUT read all of this before doing anything.

Then highlight etc the ssd again and this time accept the default / and all of the remaining space. Normally this would cause all of the directories to be built up from this.

The then move over to the hard disc. The 1st partition to create on that is swap. It an option under ext4. I would suggest 10gb for that as it’s a big disc but I suspect many would use something a little over the size of the installed memory or as much as that might be if the machine is upgraded. On that basis my new machine would need 25gb but I have set 10. It is possible to change this later if needed when the machine is up and running. Never had to do it yet.

The 2nd partition would be /tmp. This will be one of the options under the default /. I like using round numbers so would use 10gb for that too.

The 3rd partition would be /var. 10gb again for me

The 4th partition and last but not least is /home using all of the remaining space.

Min sizes. I would guess 5gb for temp and 2 or 3 for var.

You can basically put any of the directories anywhere you like within the confines of the machine. Splitting of the root file system, swap and home onto separate discs makes sense from a throughput and speed point of view but as swap isn’t generally used - hopefully - swap and root files on one disc should be ok. It’s a bit debatable where tmp should go.

After all of this has been done the disks on the machine are still as they were. Nothing happens until the final Finish is clicked. If changes have to be made the procedure is a little bit strange. From the view that shows say sd1 with more sd? below and linked to it these have to be selected and deleted so if the above needed changing, delete all and go through it again.

Going back to dual booting -If it contains a windows partition that one mustn’t be deleted only the additional Linux partition. The windows one can then be increased in size BUT MAKE SURE FORMAT PARTITION ISN’T ticked by mistake. Any added linux partition must be formatted. Then recreate the linux partition using all of the remaining available space. This only needs doing if Linux is being too greedy and doesn’t leave a reasonable space for windows. Basically it’s possible to have rather a lot of applications in a 250gb partition and I do mean lots. The same applies to Windoze. Avid video collectors may run into problems and the best option for that is probably a NAS rather than yet more disk space in a notebook. It’s possible to use those from either Linux or Windoze.

John

On 2013-07-16 12:16, John 82 wrote:
> As the notebook is running windows I would guess that the install is as
> per usual except that c\programfiles and the users desktop are on the
> hard drive as I too don’t think that 20gb is big enough to hold a
> typical windows installation. However they may have some or all of the
> standard applications it comes with on the ssd.

You forget that Windows 7 has a special mode for laptops combining a
rotating hard disk and a small SSD. Windows is installed completely in
the hard disk, but a driver makes use of the SSD as a cache, so that it
writes there whatever is used more frequently.

To install Linux you have to install Windows again or remove it.


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 12.3 x86_64 “Dartmouth” at Telcontar)

Didn’t know that they had done that Carlos. I would hope dual booting is still possible though leaving the ssd for windows. If they cache some items in that from day 1 booting may be faster. That could make dual booting difficult. On the other hand they are supposed to allow dual booting via windows but not at all sure what has happened to that aspect.

Thought I had read something about Linux adding the same thing

Linux 3.10 out with better SSD caching and Radeon support | Ars Technica

There may be some add on spin offs from this as well. I have a feeling I have seen something like that somewhere but not sure.

Intel releases SSD cache acceleration software for Linux servers - Techworld.com

John

On 2013-07-16 15:36, John 82 wrote:
>
> Didn’t know that they had done that Carlos. I would hope dual booting is
> still possible though leaving the ssd for windows. If they cache some
> items in that from day 1 booting may be faster. That could make dual
> booting difficult. On the other hand they are supposed to allow dual
> booting via windows but not at all sure what has happened to that
> aspect.

It may be this one:
wikipedia

“is a proprietary caching mechanism introduced in 2011 by Intel for
their Z68 chipset (for the Sandy Bridge–series processors), which allows
a SATA solid-state drive (SSD) to function as cache for a (conventional,
magnetic) hard disk drive.”

I don’t know if double boot with that thing is possible.

> Thought I had read something about Linux adding the same thing

It would make sense.

>
> ‘Linux 3.10 out with better SSD caching and Radeon support | Ars
> Technica’ (http://tinyurl.com/n2kgwkv)

“Linux 3.10 will include the ‘block-layer cache’ Bcache, which can be
used to configure one disk as a cache for another disk; a fast SSD, for
example, could be used as a cache for a slower hard drive with more
capacity,”

That’s it, I think. :slight_smile:
Well, they have two similar implementations.

> There may be some add on spin offs from this as well. I have a feeling
> I have seen something like that somewhere but not sure.
>
> ‘Intel releases SSD cache acceleration software for Linux servers -
> Techworld.com’ (http://tinyurl.com/mtc88lc)

This one fails to load, timeout on the adds (ajax.googleapis.com) :-?


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 12.3 x86_64 “Dartmouth” at Telcontar)

I don’t think so, or at least I have never heard or read about any Windows technology like that.
The closest I’ve heard are
Readyboost - When solid state storage rated high enough is detected(typically USB dongle or SD card), it can be used as cache extending the RAM utilization and capacity of a system. But, this would have nothing to do with a SSD.
Hybrid drives - Disks that contain both HDD and a small amount of flash, mostly used for speedier startups.

So,
When you’re talking about 2.5" SSD drives, it should be safe to assume that Windows will treat that drive as normal storage and implement optimizations assuming it would be used as a regular storage device and not an extension of RAM.

And, I would expect every other OS to behave the same way.

The info you quote based on Intel is interesting, but my initial reaction is there is value only in very special, unique situations (perhaps where you have enormous number of HDD which might want to share SSD caching for instance) and not typical of the types of machines with <= 6 drives where we might just install the OS on the SSD, move runtime rw into RAM and don’t care too much if retrieving data might take a few milliseconds longer.

TSU

Maybe it’s mSata that plugs into pci etc and does cache for a hard drive. It seems Samsung have made laptops with flash caches but it isn’t clear if this is build into the disc or separate. There is mention of Sata SSD being used for caching on the web. Sometimes in sensible places. Given the correct driver all sorts of things are possible including write protected OS’s.

Not sure how Linux gets on with some of the flash set ups. Well I would have thought on mSata as it has mainly been a server thing. Seems hybrid drives have been around for some time too.

Personally I think things relating to disc type storage on flash have some way to go yet eg a new storage format is on the way. Enterprise SSD’s are available on ebay now. Still MLC too. Are they better than the cheaper types or have those gone to more in a single cell than 2 levels? Use discard, trim regularly or follow RedHats advice - tidy up at some point when they get near full as they slow down. Data rates - interesting to look at against discs but seek times are ballistic. Less power so they can hold and store data when the power goes.

:frowning: You can now buy SLC memorys sticks and cards, very low capacity and rather expensive - why when they were cheap when they were the standard items. 220gb of slc can be bought too but the price is a bit much.

There is also yet another technology that has kicked around in the background for many years. That might hit the streets some day.

John

On 2013-07-16 17:46, tsu2 wrote:

> The info you quote based on Intel is interesting, but my initial
> reaction is there is value only in very special, unique situations
> (perhaps where you have enormous number of HDD which might want to share
> SSD caching for instance) and not typical of the types of machines with
> <= 6 drives where we might just install the OS on the SSD, move runtime
> rw into RAM and don’t care too much if retrieving data might take a few
> milliseconds longer.

On 2013-07-16 18:46, John 82 wrote:
>
> Maybe it’s mSata that plugs into pci etc and does cache for a hard
> drive. It seems Samsung have made laptops with flash caches but it isn’t
> clear if this is build into the disc or separate. There is mention of
> Sata SSD being used for caching on the web. Sometimes in sensible
> places. Given the correct driver all sorts of things are possible
> including write protected OS’s.

I have seen some magnetic HD that included some flash storage for cache.
These have a single SATA cable, and they are transparent to the OS, it
is a single disk. The firmware does the cacheing.

But I also have seen here, in the forum, some laptops with a big
magnetic disk and a small and separate SSD. To the system it appeared as
some type of asymmetric RAID, and the poster was asking how to install
Linux in that thing. I could not locate a link to that post. The
operating system and data resided in the the HD, but the SSD acted as a
big cache of files or sectors (not clear), not as an independent media.
It may well be that proprietary “Smart Response Technology thing”, but
the name “Matrix RAID” has also appeared related.

The SSD is too small for Windows, which is why I think that the OP
laptop may come with some of this. We have to make sure what he has.

Some links:

Hybrid drive

“Solid State Hybrid Drive (SSHD) is a category of storage that
incorporates NAND flash, solid state memory into a hard drive’s
architecture, resulting in a single, integrated device. SSHD is a more
precise term than the more general term “Hybrid Drive,” which has
previously been used to describe both SSHD devices, as well
non-integrated combinations of Solid State Drives (SSD) and Hard Disk
Drives (HDD).”

The article identifies several types (Apple, Intel, & others)

Windows Vista ReadyDrive

“ReadyDrive (not to be confused with ReadyBoost) is a feature of Windows
Vista that enables Windows Vista computers equipped with a hybrid drive
or other flash memory caches (such as Intel Turbo Memory) to boot up
faster, resume from hibernation in less time, and preserve battery power.”

Windows NT Ready Boost

“ReadyBoost is a disk cache component of Microsoft Windows NT, first
introduced with Windows Vista. It works by using flash memory, a USB
flash drive, SD card, CompactFlash or any kind of portable flash mass
storage system as a cache. An internal SSD can also be used for
increased performance, but has the same limitations as smaller flash
drives (such as 32 GB per cache file).”

In fact, now that I see this, my W7 laptop asks about every time I plug
a usb flash stick if I want to use it to speed up the system. Must be
that thing.


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 12.3 x86_64 “Dartmouth” at Telcontar)