How to make a smaller / on Solaris 9?
in [Solaris]
|
From: Maarten Deen on 19 Apr 2008 10:51 Oscar del Rio <delrio(a)mie.utoronto.ca> wrote in news:fucti4$sgg$1(a)news.mie: > Maarten Deen wrote: >> comp.unix.solaris(a)expires-on-2008-04-27.usenet.andreas-borchert.de >> (Andreas F. Borchert) wrote in >>> Why do you want to put /usr on a separate partition? >> >> Because I was raised to do so. That way the root partition will not >> fill up and cause problems in the system. > > / and /usr are supposed to be static, no reason for them to fill up. > You might be thinking about /var You mean one slice for / and /usr, one for /home, /usr/local and possibly a separate one for /var? I hadn't looked at it that way. > I don't remember if Solaris 9 had an Installation CD in addition to > Software CD 1 and 2. If that's so, install from CD 1 instead of the > Installation CD, you should get a more flexible installer. It has. I'll try CD 1 to see it it boots. But the installation requires CD 1 anyway after some prelimanary settings. > Or try Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris. I'm now totally comfortable with Solaris 7, and I heard that Solaris 10 made some changes to how it starts up (rc directories) and other changes. And isn't it heavier? On the Sun website it says 10GB of free disk space required, and there are 6 CD's to download. I'm running only a P-III, but hopefully with 768MB of memory (ordered, currently 128MB) but as I said, 8MB harddisk (which is a compactflash card and will not be replaced). Maarten
From: Maarten Deen on 19 Apr 2008 10:58 "Thommy M." <eclipsed9876543210(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:UqnOj.6307$R_4.4911(a)newsb.telia.net: > Maarten Deen wrote: >> I'm in the process of installing Solaris 9 x86 for a little webserver >> and > > Any particular reason to use anything so outdated? Solaris 10 and > OpenSolaris has been around for years... Sun's hardware requirements. Minimum of 256MB memory for x86 systems and I currently have 128MB. And diskspace. Although I now see that it is 2 GB minimum, which is a bit better than the 10GB I read and is for downloading the install disks. Oops. >> /opt sits in /usr here. > > loopback mounted or? Symlinked. I'm not a professional, I heard about lofs a few weeks ago Maarten
From: usenetpersongerryt on 19 Apr 2008 12:02 On Apr 19, 7:51 am, Maarten Deen <zq...(a)kf4nyy.ay> wrote: > Oscar del Rio <del...(a)mie.utoronto.ca> wrote innews:fucti4$sgg$1(a)news.mie: > > > Maarten Deen wrote: > >> comp.unix.sola...(a)expires-on-2008-04-27.usenet.andreas-borchert.de > >> (Andreas F. Borchert) wrote in > >>> Why do you want to put /usr on a separate partition? > >> Because I was raised to do so. That way the root partition will not > >> fill up and cause problems in the system. And just what is going to fill up root pray? Your website logs? > > / and /usr are supposed to be static, no reason for them to fill up. > > You might be thinking about /var > You mean one slice for / and /usr, one for /home, /usr/local and possibly a > separate one for /var? > I hadn't looked at it that way. /usr/local is just as deprecated as the concept of a separate /usr filesystem : > Yes it would still work and is supported but few do this this anymore. > > I don't remember if Solaris 9 had an Installation CD in addition to > > Software CD 1 and 2. If that's so, install from CD 1 instead of the > > Installation CD, you should get a more flexible installer. Absolutely - never use that installer CD. > It has. I'll try CD 1 to see it it boots. But the installation requires CD > 1 anyway after some prelimanary settings. > > > Or try Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris. > > I'm now totally comfortable with Solaris 7, and I heard that Solaris 10 > made some changes to how it starts up (rc directories) and other changes. Yes but its "better" : > In no time you will get used to it. > And isn't it heavier? On the Sun website it says 10GB of free disk space > required, and there are 6 CD's to download. True but thats due in large part to all the added freeware StarOffice etc. The core is not that much bigger. All the missing bits in 8 you will end up adding yourself that already exist and is supported on 10 and put in sane places. > I'm running only a P-III, but hopefully with 768MB of memory (ordered, > currently 128MB) but as I said, 8MB harddisk (which is a compactflash card > and will not be replaced). Well you really are probably stuck then with 8 using stuff that old but Id be surprised to find there drivers for a compactflash card in Solaris 8. I suggest getting a modern PC
From: Maarten Deen on 19 Apr 2008 12:15 usenetpersongerryt(a)gmail.com wrote in news:c6b98038-34db-4460-881b-ee9f1958cfee(a)p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com: > /usr/local is just as deprecated as the concept of a separate /usr > filesystem : > > Yes it would still work and is supported but few do this this anymore. If /usr/local is deprecated, where do all the additional programs get installed then? >> I'm running only a P-III, but hopefully with 768MB of memory >> (ordered, currently 128MB) but as I said, 8GB harddisk (which is a >> compactflash card and will not be replaced). > > Well you really are probably stuck then with 8 using stuff that old > but Id be > surprised to find there drivers for a compactflash card in Solaris 8. > I suggest getting a modern PC It's Solaris 9 I'm running now at the moment on the CF card. It sits in a CF2IDE converter, so the OS sees an IDE disk. And a modern PC won't even come close to using 30 Watts of power. Okay, a laptop will, but I've had bad experiences with them and to shell out more then � 100 for this defeats the purpose. Maarten
From: usenetpersongerryt on 19 Apr 2008 12:48
On Apr 19, 9:15 am, Maarten Deen <zq...(a)kf4nyy.ay> wrote: > usenetpersonger...(a)gmail.com wrote innews:c6b98038-34db-4460-881b-ee9f1958cfee(a)p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com: > > > /usr/local is just as deprecated as the concept of a separate /usr > > filesystem : > > > Yes it would still work and is supported but few do this this anymore. > If /usr/local is deprecated, where do all the additional programs get > installed then? Typically under /opt (something) man filesystem under Solaris 8 does not say this: " /usr/local Not part of the SVR4-based Solaris distribution. The /usr directory is exclusively for software bundled with the Solaris operating system. If needed for storing machine-local add-on software, create the directory /opt/local and make /usr/local a symbolic link to /opt/local. The /opt directory or filesystem is for storing add-on software to the system." Another reason to use an OS from the 21st century not the last one : > > >> I'm running only a P-III, but hopefully with 768MB of memory > >> (ordered, currently 128MB) but as I said, 8GB harddisk (which is a > >> compactflash card and will not be replaced). > > Well you really are probably stuck then with 8 using stuff that old > > but Id be > > surprised to find there drivers for a compactflash card in Solaris 8. > > I suggest getting a modern PC > It's Solaris 9 I'm running now at the moment on the CF card. It sits in a > CF2IDE converter, so the OS sees an IDE disk. You might be OK then. > And a modern PC won't even come close to using 30 Watts of power. Okay, a Why worry about wattage that much..? Ive never checked out a new PC and considered that but do they draw that much more when dumbed down to the max? I wonder. > laptop will, but I've had bad experiences with them and to shell out more > then 100 for this defeats the purpose. Harder to get laptops working true (generally). |