- This topic has 10 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated Jun 30-9:58 am by Brian Masinick.
-
Posts
-
souibes
Hi, my name is SOUIBES after installing antix core with xfce4
I did realize the amount of sda1 available is far less than I
usually get from other distro like for example bunsenlabs.
I would like to know if its normal and that’s the way antix works.
I uploaded a screenshot. If someone can give me an advice.
Thanks in advanceAttachments:
Brian Masinick
To install antiX Core, it does NOT require a lot of space (initially). How much space you need to contain the software that you install on top of the initial distribution will determine the disk, CPU and memory requirements of the resultant system you customize.
Using a simple window manager, such as IceWM and just a couple of applications, such as a terminal console, a file manager and a Web browser, you may be able to keep it usable within memory constraints of 1-2 GB, and possibly even less if you run the applications that consume the least amount of memory and are modest consumers of resources in general.
If you want to have some “headroom”, that is, a margin of space for resources to grow without causing the system to thrash in one way or another, if you have 4-8 GB of available RAM for the system, and a minimum of 10 GB of disk space, that might do it. I have an aging Dell Inspiron 5558 laptop. It has PLENTY of disk space, so I’ve carved it up into 100 GB partitions for using several different operating systems. I keep at least 8 GB available for SWAP (though it rarely even activates because I can usually fit all programs into memory. My system has 8 GB of memory, and I don’t run a lot of apps, and I seldom open more than 3-4 browser tabs. That way, even this aging system works well. When new it was an excellent laptop; it’s old now, but it still works well, just not as fast as the latest generation of systems. It runs MX Linux or antiX Linux VERY WELL!
--
Brian MasinickHi Masinick thank you for the reply.
I’m just wondering about this:
/dev/sda1 146G 2.8G 136G 3% /
146G as total size
the 2.8G is the amount of used space
136G is what’s left
146G minus 2.8G is about 143G
So my question is where are the missing
Gigs goneIs it a hidden space in root partition
or there is something that went wrong during antix installationBrian Masinick
Hi Masinick thank you for the reply.
I’m just wondering about this:
/dev/sda1 146G 2.8G 136G 3% /
146G as total size
the 2.8G is the amount of used space
136G is what’s left
146G minus 2.8G is about 143G
So my question is where are the missing
Gigs goneIs it a hidden space in root partition
or there is something that went wrong during antix installationOK, I understand your questions better.
When you talk about size, the numbers are:1) Approximations
2) Sometimes different tools use different measurements.Usually 1K = 1024 bytes, so each measurement is a multiple of this.
The other factor is that the filesystem organization itself takes up a nominal amount of space.
In short, The estimates do not provide accuracy to the nearest byte, it’s more like to the nearest block or even the nearest cylinder.
That should (at least in simple terms) explain the discrepancies. It’d take a detailed study to determine precisely which measurements are the most inaccurate, but they are a very rough estimate and definitely not super accurate.--
Brian Masinick
anticapitalista
What is the output of df -h on bunsenlabs?
Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
Thank you for your reply
If I understand the way antix works is that
the system automatically allocate a space
within the root partition to grow itself
and the rest is for the user.
Let say because antix is a system that is essentially
known to work perfectly from usb stick (persistence)
it will give itself an amount of space that is not shared
with the userBrian Masinick
$ df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on udev 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /dev tmpfs 788M 1.3M 787M 1% /run /dev/sda3 98G 35G 59G 38% / tmpfs 5.0M 4.0K 5.0M 1% /run/lock tmpfs 1.6G 4.0K 1.6G 1% /dev/shm /dev/sda4 100G 34M 100G 1% /boot/efi cgroup 12K 0 12K 0% /sys/fs/cgroup tmpfs 788M 4.0K 788M 1% /run/user/118 tmpfs 788M 8.0K 788M 1% /run/user/1000If you add all of this up, it comes pretty close to the 100 GB that was allocated to this partition.
sda3 is where I run MX Linux, which is organized in a similar way to antiX. I have more apps on this distribution, so notice the 38% disk utilization; still PLENTY of free space. But the actual allocation originally created was 100 GB. If you add up the 98 GB for /dev/sda3 and the bits and pieces elsewhere, it’s pretty close to 100 GB.--
Brian MasinickHi, I am not on bunsenlabs anymore.
The output of df -h on antix core with xfce4
df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
udev 989M 0 989M 0% /dev
tmpfs 201M 600K 201M 1% /run
/dev/sda1 146G 2.9G 136G 3% /
tmpfs 5.0M 4.0K 5.0M 1% /run/lock
tmpfs 402M 42M 360M 11% /dev/shm
tmpfs 1004M 0 1004M 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
tmpfs 201M 16K 201M 1% /run/user/1000
Dave
If you open up (g)parted you will probably see different numbers.
Not 100% certain myself… but I think this is because there is some reserved space for root processes to allow mission critical tasks to run when the disk fills up. Also a portion is taken for filesystem overhead, like tabling and journal functions, as these have a statically set size when formatted for ext file systems. I think there may also be some factors with drive alignment values when partitioning. You can probably get more details by running the command
dumpe2fs -h /dev/MY_PART_IDI am fairly certain you can “tune” the filesystem to adjust the numbers from the defaults. Maybe this is what bunsenlabs does or maybe they used a different filesystem format or maybe a slightly different partition scheme. Hard to say.
Computers are like air conditioners. They work fine until you start opening Windows. ~Author Unknown
Thank you Dave
I came to the same conclusion, it’s all about how antix is built.
It was just that I was a bit confused with the space left after install,
in my case from 146G to 136G that’s 10G used space (with reserved space).antiX is a great distribution very light and fast.
In my case fully loaded from boot in 44 seconds.Thank you all for your help.
Brian Masinick
Thank you Dave
I came to the same conclusion, it’s all about how antix is built.
It was just that I was a bit confused with the space left after install,
in my case from 146G to 136G that’s 10G used space (with reserved space).antiX is a great distribution very light and fast.
In my case fully loaded from boot in 44 seconds.Thank you all for your help.
There are definitely ways to come up with exactly what is taking place.
Here’s one thing you can do:
sudo fdisk -l /dev/sda [sudo] password for masinick: Disk /dev/sda: 931.53 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors Disk model: ST1000LM024 HN-M Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disklabel type: gpt Disk identifier: 7F7FD8B5-597F-4E4C-89E9-A15A1EE9CDC4 Device Start End Sectors Size Type /dev/sda1 2048 206847 204800 100M BIOS boot /dev/sda2 206848 16787455 16580608 7.9G Linux swap /dev/sda3 16787456 226502655 209715200 100G Linux root (x86) /dev/sda4 226502656 436217855 209715200 100G EFI System /dev/sda5 436217856 645932699 209714844 100G Linux filesystem /dev/sda6 645933056 855648255 209715200 100G Linux filesystem /dev/sda7 855648256 1065363099 209714844 100G Linux filesystem /dev/sda8 1065363456 1275078299 209714844 100G Linux root (x86) /dev/sda9 1275078656 1277175807 2097152 1G Linux filesystem /dev/sda10 1277175808 1293543423 16367616 7.8G Linux swap /dev/sda11 1293543424 1422047231 128503808 61.3G Linux filesystem /dev/sda12 1422047232 1484791807 62744576 29.9G Linux filesystem /dev/sda13 1484793856 1694509055 209715200 100G Linux filesystem /dev/sda14 1694509056 1904223899 209714844 100G Linux root (x86) /dev/sda15 1904224256 1953525134 49300879 23.5G Linux filesystemThis will provide you with a gross, but very accurate total size of each disk partition and it also provides you with sector sizes and the relative positioning of each file system.
From there, you can go into each particular file system. For example, in your local directory, you can perform a command:
du -BM and find the exact space each file consumes; it can be a very exhausting listing, but if you really want to find out exactly where (and HOW) your space is being consumed, fdisk can be very accurate at a high level and du can be very accurate at a LOW level.
I hope this is helpful and you get a better sense of what is actually going on. df is accurate, too, but doesn’t provide the specifics in a way that our brains easily digest unless we are really thinking at a true system level.
--
Brian Masinick
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
