Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
 

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Partitions and frugal vs. full installation< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
jhsu Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 175
Joined: Mar. 2007
Posted: April 02 2007,17:54 QUOTE

What is the difference between the frugal and full installation?  What does the frugal installation exclude that the full installation includes?

Also, what partitions do I need?  (This will be a single-boot, not a dual-boot, and it will be a fresh install.)  I understand that there are several necessary partitions. One is the swap partition, which I understand must be type 0x82. Since I have 256 MB of RAM, I'm allocating 512 MB to it. From what I've read, I can make this a primary or logical partition. Under what circumstances should this be a primary partition, and under what circumstances should this be a logical partition? I understand that the swap partition can be anywhere on the disk but certain locations are more optimal (for speed) than others.

I understand that another partition I need is a boot partition. I understand that all boot partitions must be within the first 1024 sectors of the hard drive and a primary partition. I understand that for Linux, the type must be 0x83. But what size should a boot partition be?  Is it supposed to occupy the rest of the hard drive?

Do I need additional partitions? If so, where should they be located, should they be primary or logical, and what size should they be?


--------------
Current cheatcodes:
kernel /boot/linux24 root=/dev/hda1 quiet vga=normal noacpi noapm nodma noscsi frugal home=hda3 opt=hda3 restore=hda3 root=hda3
Back to top
Profile PM 
^thehatsrule^ Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 3275
Joined: July 2006
Posted: April 02 2007,19:03 QUOTE

See wiki/docs, or even other forum posts for more info.

This might help you get started if you don't have a DSL yet (its the first popup, in dillo): http://damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/index.php/Local_Startup_Documentation

As to most of your questions, its really a matter of preference.
Typically using the 'ends' of a typical hard disk yields slightly better speeds, though it's pretty much negligible to the end user.
You also really only need 1 primary partition to boot from.
Back to top
Profile PM 
curaga Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 2163
Joined: Feb. 2007
Posted: April 03 2007,09:33 QUOTE

The difference is that frugal kinda emulates the livecd, the filesystem is readonly and packed (the ~50mb KNOPPIX file) and in full harddrive install everything is unpacked, writable and takes about 200 mb of space. Hd install is a little faster, because of no need to unpack, but it isn't as easily upgradable as frugal.

--------------
There's no such thing as life. Those mean little jocks invented it ;)
-
Windows is not a virus. A virus does something!
Back to top
Profile PM 
2 replies since April 02 2007,17:54 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

 
reply to topic new topic new poll
Quick Reply: Partitions and frugal vs. full installation

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code