On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 04:30:00 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: > Andy Smith composed on 2019-01-04 08:57 (UTC): > > Several people have now suggested saving space in a bits of the > > filesystem that Stephen has on dedicated partitions, so this is not > > helpful. > > > This partitioning scheme seems really odd and unwieldy. > > Indeed. Considering the absence of a sysadmin,
What's so unusual about that? For a long time I ran linux and work but didn't consider myself an "operator" or "sysadmin". Employees in those categories ran closed shops of MS and Apple kit, plus a splinter group running what they considered "proper" unix on kit that I couldn't start to afford. Most of mine was 2nd hand PC cast offs. > absence of 2 possible primary partitions on sda, If the OP partitioned an MBR disk intending to subdivide the filesystem, then it might be expected that they create an extended partition. Why bother with holding off until you've got two primary partitions set up first? > and the absence of sda6, I assume that's swap. > it makes me wonder what output from fdisk -l /dev/sda and fstab look > like, and whether the upgrade included any partitioning changes that > account for a lot of what's been left behind on /. One could reboot into single user and find out whether there's a lot of dross hidden under the mount points before /var and so on are mounted (which I think might be what you're saying). But while the system is currently running, a comparison of du -shx and df for / might give a hint. > IOW, what's behind the partitioning that exists, not just what it is that's causing the huge consumption on /. Maybe time would be better spent on a repartitioning and reinstallation than digging for causes. Maybe, but the OP would become a better sysadmin by learning something during the cleanup. Cheers, David.
