ArchThis Forum is for the discussion of Arch Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I've got an 8gb SD card I'm not using, and want to try something new with. Namely, use it as the root partition on a laptop with a built-in card reader.
I only found one (outdated) entry on the Arch Wiki, and other searches haven't turned up much of use for achieving this, except that it has to be set up at the system install.
What I want to know is what deviations from a standard install of Arch this would entail, what the risks are (with /home mounted separately) in doing so, and what potential benefits would be achieved in using the card for the root partition.
Also, if a standard (IE, HD partition based) install were to exist as well, would it be safe/wise/possible to have Pacman use a single partition for packages for both HD and SD installs, or is keeping the two separate a better idea?
I did this with several distros on my Asus EEE PC (not Arch specifically) back when I was deciding which distro to choose. If your BIOS supports boot from an SD card, then it is just another drive, and no special steps or precautions are necessary. Performance is, of course, very slow.
Now my Dell Mini on the other hand simply doesn't support boot from SD. Really it depends on your BIOS...
Personally I think it makes more sense to install the operating system to an internal drive and use the card reader for additional storage. Putting the root partition on SD means the computer is unbootable if you remove the card...
Since neither the card nor reader see much use anyway, it's unlikely to be removed in any case.
I don't know exactly if my laptop can boot direct from it or not; I haven't looked yet.
I thought that GRUB (not 2) from a HD-based /boot partition might be able to load it, but I've yet to find anything in GRUB's documentation to confirm this. Still looking though.
I also thought that booting from an SD card actually gained performance, not lost it - perhaps I misinterpreted the benefits...
So your plan is to have /boot and /home on the internal HDD and / (root) on the SD card? That should work I suppose, not something I would personally be interested in, but Linux is infinitely flexible.
That's the theory, at least. Just as soon as I get Wine to cooperate with the last two apps I need Windows for, I can remove it's partition and reclaim a good 10GB of space from that and tidy up the HD a bit more.
The final layout after that would be:
/ - on the SD card
/home, /boot - on the HD
Possibly /usr on a separate partition, but like sticking / on the SD, that mostly depends on theif the ups are better than the downs.
Edit: After a little investigating, it turns out /var would be beneficial on the HD rather than SD because it gets used so much.
Last edited by TheStarLion; 11-08-2010 at 04:34 PM.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.