Separating OS and user data to different disks [duplicate]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP








up vote
0
down vote

favorite













This question already has an answer here:



  • What are the pros and cons of having a separate home partition?

    3 answers



I would like to move all my user files, programs, everything that is not the OS.



I'd like to keep Ubuntu on an SSD and put everything I've done on a separate 1TB drive. This includes everything in $HOME, but I'd like to also move /usr to move all my user-installed software.



My thinking is to keep the 180GB SSD as pristine as possible with only the OS in case I need to re-install Ubuntu at any time.



First question: Is this a bad idea?



Second question: Can I follow the same instructions which I used to move my /home to a different disk? As in this post: Move home folder to second drive, or the wiki page about moving /home






partitioning mount filesystem home-directory installed-programs







share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by pomsky, karel, Eric Carvalho, waltinator, Zanna Mar 23 at 19:25


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • I keep everything in / except my data. That is because I have multiple installs and want data in all of them, but not configurations from /home.My 16.04 is my main working install currently. I just converted my 14.04 partition to 18.04, but probably will reinstall once released. LInking data folders into /home: askubuntu.com/questions/1013677/…
    – oldfred
    Mar 21 at 3:33















up vote
0
down vote

favorite













This question already has an answer here:



  • What are the pros and cons of having a separate home partition?

    3 answers



I would like to move all my user files, programs, everything that is not the OS.



I'd like to keep Ubuntu on an SSD and put everything I've done on a separate 1TB drive. This includes everything in $HOME, but I'd like to also move /usr to move all my user-installed software.



My thinking is to keep the 180GB SSD as pristine as possible with only the OS in case I need to re-install Ubuntu at any time.



First question: Is this a bad idea?



Second question: Can I follow the same instructions which I used to move my /home to a different disk? As in this post: Move home folder to second drive, or the wiki page about moving /home






partitioning mount filesystem home-directory installed-programs







share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by pomsky, karel, Eric Carvalho, waltinator, Zanna Mar 23 at 19:25


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • I keep everything in / except my data. That is because I have multiple installs and want data in all of them, but not configurations from /home.My 16.04 is my main working install currently. I just converted my 14.04 partition to 18.04, but probably will reinstall once released. LInking data folders into /home: askubuntu.com/questions/1013677/…
    – oldfred
    Mar 21 at 3:33













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite












This question already has an answer here:



  • What are the pros and cons of having a separate home partition?

    3 answers



I would like to move all my user files, programs, everything that is not the OS.



I'd like to keep Ubuntu on an SSD and put everything I've done on a separate 1TB drive. This includes everything in $HOME, but I'd like to also move /usr to move all my user-installed software.



My thinking is to keep the 180GB SSD as pristine as possible with only the OS in case I need to re-install Ubuntu at any time.



First question: Is this a bad idea?



Second question: Can I follow the same instructions which I used to move my /home to a different disk? As in this post: Move home folder to second drive, or the wiki page about moving /home






partitioning mount filesystem home-directory installed-programs







share|improve this question
















This question already has an answer here:



  • What are the pros and cons of having a separate home partition?

    3 answers



I would like to move all my user files, programs, everything that is not the OS.



I'd like to keep Ubuntu on an SSD and put everything I've done on a separate 1TB drive. This includes everything in $HOME, but I'd like to also move /usr to move all my user-installed software.



My thinking is to keep the 180GB SSD as pristine as possible with only the OS in case I need to re-install Ubuntu at any time.



First question: Is this a bad idea?



Second question: Can I follow the same instructions which I used to move my /home to a different disk? As in this post: Move home folder to second drive, or the wiki page about moving /home





This question already has an answer here:



  • What are the pros and cons of having a separate home partition?

    3 answers






partitioning mount filesystem home-directory installed-programs




partitioning mount filesystem home-directory installed-programs






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 21 at 4:34









wjandrea

7,19342255




7,19342255










asked Mar 21 at 2:27









Joe Molnar

114




114




marked as duplicate by pomsky, karel, Eric Carvalho, waltinator, Zanna Mar 23 at 19:25


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by pomsky, karel, Eric Carvalho, waltinator, Zanna Mar 23 at 19:25


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • I keep everything in / except my data. That is because I have multiple installs and want data in all of them, but not configurations from /home.My 16.04 is my main working install currently. I just converted my 14.04 partition to 18.04, but probably will reinstall once released. LInking data folders into /home: askubuntu.com/questions/1013677/…
    – oldfred
    Mar 21 at 3:33

















  • I keep everything in / except my data. That is because I have multiple installs and want data in all of them, but not configurations from /home.My 16.04 is my main working install currently. I just converted my 14.04 partition to 18.04, but probably will reinstall once released. LInking data folders into /home: askubuntu.com/questions/1013677/…
    – oldfred
    Mar 21 at 3:33
















I keep everything in / except my data. That is because I have multiple installs and want data in all of them, but not configurations from /home.My 16.04 is my main working install currently. I just converted my 14.04 partition to 18.04, but probably will reinstall once released. LInking data folders into /home: askubuntu.com/questions/1013677/…
– oldfred
Mar 21 at 3:33





I keep everything in / except my data. That is because I have multiple installs and want data in all of them, but not configurations from /home.My 16.04 is my main working install currently. I just converted my 14.04 partition to 18.04, but probably will reinstall once released. LInking data folders into /home: askubuntu.com/questions/1013677/…
– oldfred
Mar 21 at 3:33











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote














First question: is this a bad idea?




The goal is good, and the plan is mostly good...



Moving /home to a different partition is an excellent (in fact, recommended) idea for the very "I need to re-install Ubuntu at any time" reason. I can think why Ubuntu insists on putting /home in the / partition, but it might offend delicate sensibilities.




but I'd like to also move /usr also to move all my user installed software.




Locally installed s/w lives in /usr/local and /opt. Everything else in /usr is (should be) controlled by Ubuntu.



Thus, I'd create a:




  • small partition on the 1TB drive to mount /usr/local,

  • another small partition for /opt, and

  • a "rest of the disk" partition for /home.





share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Please clarify "Dumb Down Syndrome", and please be aware that implying "Down syndrome" is offensive.
    – wjandrea
    Mar 21 at 4:45











  • @wjandrea sigh...
    – RonJohn
    Mar 21 at 4:56






  • 1




    I'm not trying to shut you down, just saying you should be more considerate. This is supposed to be a friendly site, and implying that people have mental handicaps doesn't help that. I'm also not sure what you meant in the first place. To me it seems less like dumbing-down and more like simplifying (c.f. swap file becoming the default instead of swap partition), but I'm open to your take on it.
    – wjandrea
    Mar 21 at 5:08











  • Couldn't this approach confuse the package manager in case of reinstalling Ubuntu? AFAIK the status of packages (e.g. installed) is not stored in /usr/local, but somewhere in /var (or was it /etc?), so the package manager won't update installed software because it doesn't know it is installed.
    – danzel
    Mar 21 at 9:01











  • @danzel no, because programs installed in /usr/local and /opt are explicitly outside of package manager control, and package managers know that.
    – RonJohn
    Mar 21 at 15:03

















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote














First question: is this a bad idea?




The goal is good, and the plan is mostly good...



Moving /home to a different partition is an excellent (in fact, recommended) idea for the very "I need to re-install Ubuntu at any time" reason. I can think why Ubuntu insists on putting /home in the / partition, but it might offend delicate sensibilities.




but I'd like to also move /usr also to move all my user installed software.




Locally installed s/w lives in /usr/local and /opt. Everything else in /usr is (should be) controlled by Ubuntu.



Thus, I'd create a:




  • small partition on the 1TB drive to mount /usr/local,

  • another small partition for /opt, and

  • a "rest of the disk" partition for /home.





share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Please clarify "Dumb Down Syndrome", and please be aware that implying "Down syndrome" is offensive.
    – wjandrea
    Mar 21 at 4:45











  • @wjandrea sigh...
    – RonJohn
    Mar 21 at 4:56






  • 1




    I'm not trying to shut you down, just saying you should be more considerate. This is supposed to be a friendly site, and implying that people have mental handicaps doesn't help that. I'm also not sure what you meant in the first place. To me it seems less like dumbing-down and more like simplifying (c.f. swap file becoming the default instead of swap partition), but I'm open to your take on it.
    – wjandrea
    Mar 21 at 5:08











  • Couldn't this approach confuse the package manager in case of reinstalling Ubuntu? AFAIK the status of packages (e.g. installed) is not stored in /usr/local, but somewhere in /var (or was it /etc?), so the package manager won't update installed software because it doesn't know it is installed.
    – danzel
    Mar 21 at 9:01











  • @danzel no, because programs installed in /usr/local and /opt are explicitly outside of package manager control, and package managers know that.
    – RonJohn
    Mar 21 at 15:03














up vote
0
down vote














First question: is this a bad idea?




The goal is good, and the plan is mostly good...



Moving /home to a different partition is an excellent (in fact, recommended) idea for the very "I need to re-install Ubuntu at any time" reason. I can think why Ubuntu insists on putting /home in the / partition, but it might offend delicate sensibilities.




but I'd like to also move /usr also to move all my user installed software.




Locally installed s/w lives in /usr/local and /opt. Everything else in /usr is (should be) controlled by Ubuntu.



Thus, I'd create a:




  • small partition on the 1TB drive to mount /usr/local,

  • another small partition for /opt, and

  • a "rest of the disk" partition for /home.





share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Please clarify "Dumb Down Syndrome", and please be aware that implying "Down syndrome" is offensive.
    – wjandrea
    Mar 21 at 4:45











  • @wjandrea sigh...
    – RonJohn
    Mar 21 at 4:56






  • 1




    I'm not trying to shut you down, just saying you should be more considerate. This is supposed to be a friendly site, and implying that people have mental handicaps doesn't help that. I'm also not sure what you meant in the first place. To me it seems less like dumbing-down and more like simplifying (c.f. swap file becoming the default instead of swap partition), but I'm open to your take on it.
    – wjandrea
    Mar 21 at 5:08











  • Couldn't this approach confuse the package manager in case of reinstalling Ubuntu? AFAIK the status of packages (e.g. installed) is not stored in /usr/local, but somewhere in /var (or was it /etc?), so the package manager won't update installed software because it doesn't know it is installed.
    – danzel
    Mar 21 at 9:01











  • @danzel no, because programs installed in /usr/local and /opt are explicitly outside of package manager control, and package managers know that.
    – RonJohn
    Mar 21 at 15:03












up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote










First question: is this a bad idea?




The goal is good, and the plan is mostly good...



Moving /home to a different partition is an excellent (in fact, recommended) idea for the very "I need to re-install Ubuntu at any time" reason. I can think why Ubuntu insists on putting /home in the / partition, but it might offend delicate sensibilities.




but I'd like to also move /usr also to move all my user installed software.




Locally installed s/w lives in /usr/local and /opt. Everything else in /usr is (should be) controlled by Ubuntu.



Thus, I'd create a:




  • small partition on the 1TB drive to mount /usr/local,

  • another small partition for /opt, and

  • a "rest of the disk" partition for /home.





share|improve this answer















First question: is this a bad idea?




The goal is good, and the plan is mostly good...



Moving /home to a different partition is an excellent (in fact, recommended) idea for the very "I need to re-install Ubuntu at any time" reason. I can think why Ubuntu insists on putting /home in the / partition, but it might offend delicate sensibilities.




but I'd like to also move /usr also to move all my user installed software.




Locally installed s/w lives in /usr/local and /opt. Everything else in /usr is (should be) controlled by Ubuntu.



Thus, I'd create a:




  • small partition on the 1TB drive to mount /usr/local,

  • another small partition for /opt, and

  • a "rest of the disk" partition for /home.






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 21 at 5:00

























answered Mar 21 at 2:38









RonJohn

375110




375110







  • 1




    Please clarify "Dumb Down Syndrome", and please be aware that implying "Down syndrome" is offensive.
    – wjandrea
    Mar 21 at 4:45











  • @wjandrea sigh...
    – RonJohn
    Mar 21 at 4:56






  • 1




    I'm not trying to shut you down, just saying you should be more considerate. This is supposed to be a friendly site, and implying that people have mental handicaps doesn't help that. I'm also not sure what you meant in the first place. To me it seems less like dumbing-down and more like simplifying (c.f. swap file becoming the default instead of swap partition), but I'm open to your take on it.
    – wjandrea
    Mar 21 at 5:08











  • Couldn't this approach confuse the package manager in case of reinstalling Ubuntu? AFAIK the status of packages (e.g. installed) is not stored in /usr/local, but somewhere in /var (or was it /etc?), so the package manager won't update installed software because it doesn't know it is installed.
    – danzel
    Mar 21 at 9:01











  • @danzel no, because programs installed in /usr/local and /opt are explicitly outside of package manager control, and package managers know that.
    – RonJohn
    Mar 21 at 15:03












  • 1




    Please clarify "Dumb Down Syndrome", and please be aware that implying "Down syndrome" is offensive.
    – wjandrea
    Mar 21 at 4:45











  • @wjandrea sigh...
    – RonJohn
    Mar 21 at 4:56






  • 1




    I'm not trying to shut you down, just saying you should be more considerate. This is supposed to be a friendly site, and implying that people have mental handicaps doesn't help that. I'm also not sure what you meant in the first place. To me it seems less like dumbing-down and more like simplifying (c.f. swap file becoming the default instead of swap partition), but I'm open to your take on it.
    – wjandrea
    Mar 21 at 5:08











  • Couldn't this approach confuse the package manager in case of reinstalling Ubuntu? AFAIK the status of packages (e.g. installed) is not stored in /usr/local, but somewhere in /var (or was it /etc?), so the package manager won't update installed software because it doesn't know it is installed.
    – danzel
    Mar 21 at 9:01











  • @danzel no, because programs installed in /usr/local and /opt are explicitly outside of package manager control, and package managers know that.
    – RonJohn
    Mar 21 at 15:03







1




1




Please clarify "Dumb Down Syndrome", and please be aware that implying "Down syndrome" is offensive.
– wjandrea
Mar 21 at 4:45





Please clarify "Dumb Down Syndrome", and please be aware that implying "Down syndrome" is offensive.
– wjandrea
Mar 21 at 4:45













@wjandrea sigh...
– RonJohn
Mar 21 at 4:56




@wjandrea sigh...
– RonJohn
Mar 21 at 4:56




1




1




I'm not trying to shut you down, just saying you should be more considerate. This is supposed to be a friendly site, and implying that people have mental handicaps doesn't help that. I'm also not sure what you meant in the first place. To me it seems less like dumbing-down and more like simplifying (c.f. swap file becoming the default instead of swap partition), but I'm open to your take on it.
– wjandrea
Mar 21 at 5:08





I'm not trying to shut you down, just saying you should be more considerate. This is supposed to be a friendly site, and implying that people have mental handicaps doesn't help that. I'm also not sure what you meant in the first place. To me it seems less like dumbing-down and more like simplifying (c.f. swap file becoming the default instead of swap partition), but I'm open to your take on it.
– wjandrea
Mar 21 at 5:08













Couldn't this approach confuse the package manager in case of reinstalling Ubuntu? AFAIK the status of packages (e.g. installed) is not stored in /usr/local, but somewhere in /var (or was it /etc?), so the package manager won't update installed software because it doesn't know it is installed.
– danzel
Mar 21 at 9:01





Couldn't this approach confuse the package manager in case of reinstalling Ubuntu? AFAIK the status of packages (e.g. installed) is not stored in /usr/local, but somewhere in /var (or was it /etc?), so the package manager won't update installed software because it doesn't know it is installed.
– danzel
Mar 21 at 9:01













@danzel no, because programs installed in /usr/local and /opt are explicitly outside of package manager control, and package managers know that.
– RonJohn
Mar 21 at 15:03




@danzel no, because programs installed in /usr/local and /opt are explicitly outside of package manager control, and package managers know that.
– RonJohn
Mar 21 at 15:03


-

Popular posts from this blog

How do so many people here on Academia.SE, and in general, afford lavish higher education programs?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 45 down vote favorite 7 I graduated last year with a BS in Computer Science. I do not come from a particularly wealthy family, (very low middle class), and was only able to afford my education via school loans/scholarships and working low-wage jobs, with no support from my family or anyone else. I realize some scholarship/loan programs extend into grad school. But I don't think those cover all costs. Now I'm lucky enough to have a decent-paying salary in industry, along with benefits and living on my own, and I'm thinking one day (sooner rather than later) I'd like to try my hand at research or continue my degree, but these things cost money, in addition to my regular living expenses. I read posts here often about academic people being in positions of choosing between these crazy research grad programs, some in Japan, or Ireland (while they currently live in the U.S./U.K.) then moving around between countries/universit...
Read more

Unable to upgrade pip

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 15 down vote favorite 3 I am new to Linux and Ubuntu. I was trying to upgrade pip but ran into this... $ sudo pip install --upgrade pip Cannot fetch index base URL https://pypi.python.org/simple/ Downloading/unpacking pip from https://pypi.python.org/packages/py2.py3/p/pip/pip-7.1.0-py2.py3-none-any.whl#md5=b108384a762825ec20345bb9b5b7209f Downloading pip-7.1.0-py2.py3-none-any.whl (1.1MB): 1.1MB downloaded Installing collected packages: pip Found existing installation: pip 1.5.4 Not uninstalling pip at /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages, owned by OS Successfully installed pip Cleaning up... Any idea why? upgrade python share | improve this question edited Aug 29 '17 at 23:52 Zanna 48k 13 119 228 asked Jul 5 '15 at 23:13 Spencer Lee 78 1 1 4 2 try apt i.e. sudo apt-get install python-pip to upgrade pip – heemayl Jul 5 '15 at 23:15 hmmm... s...
Read more

Cutting all the characters after the last /

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 8 down vote favorite 1 How do I cut all characters after the last '/'? This text xxxx/x/xx/xx/xxxx/x/yyyyy xxx/xxxx/xxxxx/yyy should return xxxx/x/xx/xx/xxxx/x xxx/xxxx/xxxxx command-line text-processing share | improve this question edited Feb 28 at 3:57 muru 130k 19 274 467 asked Feb 27 at 15:27 Josef Klimuk 542 1 12 4 Are you trying to omit or isolate the characters after the last / ? – dsstorefile1 Feb 27 at 15:34 Good question, I just realised that we didn't understand the question the same way – Félicien Feb 27 at 15:35 3 The commands basename and dirname do this already. – Michael Hampton Feb 28 at 0:49 I don't think edit #5 to the question was correct. Using the word "cut" might be ambiguous; if you cut something, do you throw away that part...
Read more