What is the perfect and ultimate parition and folder structure?

What is the perfect and ultimate parition and folder structure?
How many partitions should you have? One? Or separate paritions for system, data (how many and for what?)

What is the perfect folder structure? What root folders do you have for your stuff? Like "Movies" for movies, "Games" for games, etc

How do you catalog your files and stuff?

Other urls found in this thread:


One partition for each file.

spamming the same shitty threads

It's not a bad question at all (I'm not OP btw). There's a lot of different approaches to organizing storage, and with datasets diverse enough it may become complicated and not obvious how to do it optimally. For instance, do you generally organize by subject then by filetype, or the other way around? Etc.

I propose this:

1. NOOB LEVEL: store all files on desktop
2. BASIC LEVEL: store files in folders depending on file type (e.g. Movies, Pictures, Games, Documents, Music)
3. ADVANCED LEVEL: store files depending on Project, and put all files for particular project no matter what file type they have. (e.g. CP, Family, PlanToBlowUpFederalBuilding, Drugs, MyDarknetStore, School, Work)

is there better level than advanced level?

Metadata in the path. Example: ~/Music/Alchemist/(1993) Jar of Kingdom/01 - Abstraction.flac


Directory file tree is a relic of a past when electronic file storage was arranged in form of spinning discs.
Modern flash memory doesn't have access time problems, therefore it is possible to arrange files by different categories simultaneously, aka tagging system.

You might find this thread, had you spent three seconds looking, to be useful.

But the physical location of a file's data on the disk has next to nothing to do with its logical position within the hierarchical filesystem structure.

Show us your tagged file system implementation. What operating systems are supported?

Do you store program installers/archives/packages in one directory divided by category, or do you store them together with all kinds of other files which share a common subject (in other words, would you store a GIMP installation package in installers\graphics, or graphics\installers)?

I don't know what you meant by installers/archives/packages
do you mean Program Files? or the .exe installer?

I use my package manager.

Installers or achives (if the program doesn't need to be installed). But it's a conceptual thing really and program installers were just an example. I might as well ask if you keep all PDFs together and then sorted by subject, or if you put PDFs toghether with other files on a given subject.

Which thread?

Everything in one flat folder. Hierarchies are a form of oppression that you have been conditioned to accept. They are not ok.

That's more like retard level. Noob level would be to store shit in the built-in "Muh Documents" folder (where all sorts of programs love to take a dump in and create their own folders).

I put PDFs into subject/projects first.
CP/how to fuck a loli.pdf
Terr*rism/how to blow up federal building.pdf

storing all pdfs into one folder and then subfolders by subjects would be stupid. Files related to project could be of many types, pdfs, txt, mp4 etc. Why should you be required to visit 10 folders just to get files related to your project?

And if you needed to just look at list of all your pdfs you can just make a search on your HDD for *.pdf

This is simple.
At most 4 partitions for the OS. One for core functionality, one for all installed programs, and one for temp/swap
As long as the core partition remains, the system is usable, and there won't be an issue with full partition errors. Ideally, the core OS would be a read only partition that's only remounted read-write for updating, patching, or modifying.
User data gets it's own partition.

From there, you use some sort of logical disk management that allows for you to easily modify, add, and remove partitions for specific tasks. The disk manager should be able to do any one of these tasks with a single line, single command
One for media, one for games, one for VMs, one for special stuff, etc.

Going overboard with partitions tends to backfire eventually in that you run out of space on some of them and then have to stick sfuff on other partitions it conceptually doesn't belong to, defeating the purpose the separate partitions had in the first place. Separating very large files like virtual disks (to minimize their fragmentation may make sense, but beyond that it's usually better to use as few partitions for data storage as possible.

If someone listed that unironically as reason for not playing vidya, or as a reason for school shootings I'd likely believe them.

There's definitely no perfect solution.


ZFS datasets with quotas has worked well for 10+ years.
It's no different conceptually. You can do the same with LVM.


Don't capital letters used where appropriate improve readability though? What's the main advantage to using lowercase only?

There isn't one, he's just being a contrarian tryhard retarf

File names that are not just lower case or just upper case just look wrong to me. It's the same way camelCase just looks off.

Where's the difference to hardlinks and links?

what is the answer?

nobody ever mentions creating a swap partition for memory caching on your hard drive. you should at least a little bit of your hard drive for /swap linux

If you have less than 8GB RAM, you should do a swap partition. If you have more RAM than that, you probably don't need it. I guess it depends on what you're doing.

How do you structure storage of Zig Forums-related files (such as OS images, updates and extensions, hardware drivers, software installation packages, documentation, PDFs/ebooks, instructional videos/lectures, documentaries, website mirrors etc. etc.)? It seems quite difficult to come up with a structure that is intuitive, consistent, and non-overlapping.

That's one of the goals of the Lisp OS.



They're all in /lib/modules

Handled by package manager.





Do you have a lot of those? Why?

Sounds like you've got Windows™ Problems.

It's data which shouldn't be bound to a specific computer, but rather reside on a NAS or something where it can be accessed from many computers (possibly with different operating systems). Your general approach looks like "I have just this one computer which runs Linux and I care about nothing else".

As per the above, putting a data collection not entirely tied to a specific OS or a specific computer into a specific user's home directory is not a good idea, it should be a separate data-only filesystem. Apart from that, do you put all ISOs together (no matter if Microsoft, Linux, BSD etc.)? Or rather put different things which all belong to a specific OS (ISOs, updates, drivers, program binaries/sources, documentation) together?

See above. There's much more to an OS than just its ISO image (look at mdgx.com/web to get an idea).

I'm not talking about installed drivers, but about archived driver installation packages. Do you group drivers primarily by hardware, or by OS, or yet differently? Do you keep them with OS-related files (see above), or rather with hardware-related files, or separately?

Not everyone wants to keep redowloading software over and over again and be at the complete mercy of a package manager, internet connection and online repository.

It's not really that trivial, partly for reasons cited above, and partly because it might be more convenient to store docs/books/videos etc. together with other files on the specific *subject* they concern.

The web in not eternal and online archives like the wayback machine are not perfect. "a lot" is relative, but it's not a bad idea to archive websites (or parts of them) you consider of special value.

Not really, much rather it's about a much more general, OS-agnostic and machine-agnostic approach to organizing storage. Contrarily, your replies seem reek of Loonix fanboyism, and at the end of the day it's hard to take a fanboy seriously.

everything goes in / and is symlinked elsewhere

That's because people tend to not have mechanical drives inside their PC anymore

>implying HDDs in the 2020s will go the way optical went in the 2010s, 3.5 floppies went in the 2000s, 5.25 floppies went in the 1990s, and punchcards went in the 1980s

Make all the directory structures and use symlinks, or stop being a fucking weirdo autist and leave everything in a vague folder like "books" like everyone else. There's a reason music fans sort by album or atist and not genre

4. ELITE LEVEL; same as advanced, except CP and family are the same folder.

4. Store everything concatenated into 100Gb obfuscated files + index files mapping sha1 of content to position. Instead of directories, have text files (in same storage of course) mapping names to sha1 and metadata.
4.5. (planned) same, but get rid of file-system and store bundles on bare block devices
That's how I store my 8.5Tb of memes and hentai

Attached: exploding-mind.jpg (1024x768, 127.42K)

For one I admire the guy for amassing all that shit, but on the other hand it's still a huge clusterfuck of sorts. Who is going to wade through all this? I think it could use some reorganization to have the more important things stand out better rather than be drowned out in those hundreds upon hundreds of links.

Nice image (visualizing how everything is just a wave function carried on something else, etc. etc.), shitty watermarks. Anywhere one can find a non-watermarked copy?

There's a whole board dedicated to this exact quesiion

for what exact purpose

Swap is for hibernation and dumping kernel panics.
If you use S3 sleep instead, enjoy glow in the dark NSA afroamericans raiding your cardboard mcmansion any time any day.

why keep swap on separate partition? pagefile should be on system partition, so it's easy to change pagefile size at anytime. Windows is superior to linux

If you don't need pagefile, that means you are stupid and bought too much RAM for your needs

that's because music fans are idiots and they don't have music to listen to it and have fun, they have music to collect it
sorting music by genres/styles is superior to sorting by albums (assuming you actually want to listen to music)

Maybe if you want to listen to tons and tons of different music you don't care about so you keep forgetting what genre a given artist/album actually is. If you care about the music then you don't need to be reminded of what genre it is (and genre classification is blurry and subjective anyway).

your not the only one.

I guess you can use YYYY-MM-DD too.


One encrypted partition for the whole drive is the only way to go.

Keeping more than one partition is a historical artifact. If you’re operating a server this might not be true, and mounting a drive no-execute makes sense, but for the individual user on their own machine one encrypted partition is the way to go.

Then you use 01 for the month/day when you don't know it. That's not exactly rocket science.

I don’t understand, are you suggesting that it’s possible to have too much RAM?

are you idiot who actually clicks every 5 minutes to change song? I want that songs are changed automatically and all next songs are of similar genre and mood
also listening to albums is dumb, many albums have songs of totally different genre. and also most albums are 2 good songs + 10 shit songs

if you have few partitions and one fails, you only lose one and not all of them. but it doesn't matter since we all have backups.
also If you have more than one partition and move file from one to another, files need to physically moved, if you have one partition nothing needs moving
also in case of HDDs (one platter ones), the drive is fastest at beginning and slowest at end, so you could have faster and slower paritions and keep files depending on need of speed. if first parition is for system, you can have pagefile and hiberfile there so it's faster.

resizing partition is a pain if they are encrypted
with paritions, defragmentation is easier

but should have one hdd? or small ssd for system and then hdd for data? but ssd is pointless

here are some advantages and disadvantages of partitions. I am still undecided if I should use partitions

yes, if you have so much RAM that you don't need pagefile, it means you are goy and bought useless thing

I keep everything in terms of media in about 2-3 clickable folders



That makes no sense. You can have one album that you know that came out in June, and another that came out the same year and after the other one but you don't know which month exactly. What sense would it make to assume January, when you know it came out in the latter half of the year?

That's like saying that having any vlans on a switch beyond the default vlan0 is "historical artifact".

(or vlan1, given that mostly 0 is reserved and 1 is the default one, but that's details beyond the actual point)

Opinion discarded.

If you consider multibooting then you'll surely need partitions. There was a thread on multibooting a week or two ago but for reasons unknown it was deleted(??).

Attached: untitled_.PNG (461x582, 70.71K)

Probably too technical for Zig Forums.

You really took the time to reply to this tard?

multibooting is shit and pointless. you better get good base OS off which you will run virtual machines if you need many OS

Zig Forums mods are corrupt and paid by evil companies. those companies don't want the users to have multiple OS

not an argument