PDA

View Full Version : [ubuntu] 9.04 Netbook Remix



tomsimmons
April 23rd, 2009, 10:33 PM
Evening Folks

I've just installed 9.04 remix on my 901, and I have to say it's very good, much better than the default Linux that comes with it.

I have a question though, without thinking I chose to overwrite the existing install on there, that was on the small SSD, I'm wondering if I would have been better installing to the large SSD, any thoughts?

I assume that the default install and automatic partitioning doesn't create a swap partition in remix?


Tom

PS, not sure this is the right thread prefix, but there isn't one for Remix

tommcd
April 24th, 2009, 12:07 AM
To see if you have a swap partition open a terminal and run sudo fdisk -l. This will list your partitions. If there is a swap partition it will be listed there.
What file system did you use when installing netbook remix? If you don't know, then post the output of: cat /etc/fstab. If your filesystem is ext3, then I would recommend changing the relatime boot option in fstab to noatime. See this article:
http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/category/computers/ssd/
Just backup your /etc/fstab first.

snowpine
April 24th, 2009, 12:17 AM
What he said ----^
And I just wanted to add, you made the right decision installing to the smaller drive, because it is the fast one. :)

ddrichardson
April 24th, 2009, 12:21 AM
If it helps, I have no swap space on a 512Mb Aspire One and have had no problems.

tomsimmons
April 24th, 2009, 08:26 AM
Thanks Folks for your replies.

Sadly I'm at work now, but I'll check this when I get home.

One other thing, I'm considering upgrading the RAM to 2GB then setting up a swap file in there. What's your thoughts on this, worth it or no point?


Thanks again for your answers.


Tom

tomsimmons
April 24th, 2009, 03:34 PM
OK, the bad news is that a swap has been created...

Disk /dev/sda: 4034 MB, 4034838528 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 490 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00007d99

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 462 3710983+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 463 490 224910 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 463 490 224878+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris

Disk /dev/sdb: 16.1 GB, 16139354112 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 1962 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00000000

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdb1 1 1962 15759733+ 83 Linux

And the file system is ext3...

proc /proc proc defaults 0 0
# / was on /dev/sda1 during installation
UUID=9becc3f0-02c6-4839-974c-070776089831 / ext3 relatime,errors=remount-ro 0 1
# swap was on /dev/sda5 during installation
UUID=cfe0ddda-42df-490e-be07-0ec96c9d6377 none swap sw 0 0


Obviously I need to remove the swap from the SSD, I guess for now just turn it off until I decide on the memory upgrade and ramdisk style approach. I don't suppose you could provide any guidance on this?

As for the file system, would I be better using ext 2, or just making the change you state?

Thanks for you help


Tom

ddrichardson
April 24th, 2009, 06:01 PM
Open a terminal:
sudo swapoff /dev/sda5Then remove the swap entry from /etc/fstab and use gparted to increase the other partition.

tomsimmons
April 24th, 2009, 06:46 PM
Thanks for your reply.

I have done as you suggested, but I have one question, which partition should I increase, /dev/sda1 or /dev/sda2 ?


Tom

Ahh, hold on, the swap is in the extended (sda2), so I guess I need to get rid of that also and assign it all to sda1. However, gparted won't let me resize sda1, I assume because it's in use. Do I therefore need to use something like the liveCD (or at least the version that's on the USB pen) and do the re-partioning from there?


Tom

tomsimmons
April 24th, 2009, 07:39 PM
OK, well I used the liveCD and gparted from with in there and managed to resize the sda1 partition to the full size.

Thanks for all your help folks.


Tom

ganatronic
May 5th, 2009, 08:43 AM
As did I. Thanks.

What follows is an observation of sorts - not a problem I need help with (I don't think!):

When I first installed UNR - I also, like Tom, chose to overwrite the existing install on the smaller drive. But one thing that bugged me after the install was done was that the "main" partition seemed to be that smaller drive - as in, on the right-hand side the folders listed (documents, music, etc.) were all from that partition. But I didn't want to use that partition for that stuff, given that it had just a little over 1gb of available space, while the partition I didn't install it on (sdb1, listed as HOME) had 16gb free. So I had to navigate a bunch in order to access my drive with all the space on it, while the one with smaller space was front and center. Does this make any sense? (I haven't used linux/ubuntu in like three years, and am a little rusty.) At any rate, it seemed odd.

But after following the suggestions above - using the usb drive to boot with the "live cd," then using gparted to edit the partitions (remove the swap and add it the smaller partition; reformat both partitions to ext2) - and then reinstalling, and this time on the reinstall choosing the custom partition settings; assigning the smaller partition to the root, and the bigger one to /home - everything is sweet. The folders listed on the right-hand side are now from the larger partition.

anyway...

ddrichardson
May 5th, 2009, 06:58 PM
Does this make any sense?
No frankly but I'm glad it worked out for you ;-)

ganatronic
May 5th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Ha. Well, basically, the "Documents, Music, Pictures, Video" folders listed on the right:

http://blueskiesabove.us/pics/Ubuntu-Netbook-Remix_1.png

were folders for the 4gb partition that I installed it on (so they only had 1.3gb of space left). While the Home one at top had 16gb free space. And I thought it was lame how I had this listing of folders that I didn't want to use, and I didn't know how to remove them and add subfolders from Home.

ddrichardson
May 5th, 2009, 08:54 PM
OK, have you managed it now?

ganatronic
May 5th, 2009, 09:27 PM
Yes, I re-partitioned and re-installed, and the folders magically changed to be subfolders of the bigger drive! :P

First impressions of using ext2 for the format of the drives, and with no swap: it seemed a little slower! But don't hold me to that.

ddrichardson
May 5th, 2009, 09:59 PM
I can't think of any particular reason it would be significantly slower but the reasoning behind not using a journaled file system is to minimise disc writes.

ganatronic
May 5th, 2009, 10:10 PM
I'm thinking there were other factors at play, such as icons and stuff loading for the first time. Plus the auto update started running. I didn't have a lot of time to play around.