How do I make the "Root Partition" bigger?

Support & Help Requests
#1

YHeaaa.......
That`s it actually.
"How do I make the "Root Partition" bigger ?
Regards
SpacePunk

#2

By the "root" partition, do you mean the partition on which your OS is installed?

If you do, then you need to reboot into a Live Ubuntu Mate session with a live UM ISO. Then, once at the live desktop, open Gparted and identify you main OS partition on your hard drive. Once you have done that, you can use the handles at each end of the graphical representation of the partition to resize it. However, you'll need empty available space on the drive to be able to enlarge it. To reduce it is, obviously, not going to be a problem. Having once reduced it, you would then have empty free space available.

See below for a video of how to use gparted:

#3
  • THANKs A LOT @stevecook172001. :smiley::v: And yes, its all about the installed OS.
    This will be a Sunday operation for me so I`ll be back.
    Then again , this is a solved issue.
    Regards
    SpacePunk
1 Like
#4

There is another way of doing things for the lazy; if you make symbolic links into a larger partition, you can keep directories where they need to be through links even though these files are elsewhere. It's how I've been doing it with my dual-boot setup.

In my case ln is a wonderful thing.

#5

HI @tiox, it`s been a wile but always great to hear from you.
And of course I haven’t started on this issue jet, so your call of easier way sounds enchanting.
But for a "IT ■■■■■■■■" person like me there’s some issues.
"Symbolic Links" how are they done ??
I really need more of the command than just the "ln".
Could you please give me the hole thing ?
Regards
SpacePunk

#6

For an IT person, I am surprised you didn't do man ln to understand more about it.

Anyway, here's a quick reference via die.net for you to look through. The secret sauce is -s and -P, while the rest are situational and not necessary to make most links useful.

I am sure there are places on the Internet that can explain the other functions much better than I can, because they have way more personal experience with the utility than I had. But generally here's how it works; For ln to do its magic, a target must be defined, then whatever the link is called. (Let's say, /mnt/Windows/Users/spunk/Documents for example.)

If you wanted to make a link to a user's Documents directory from Windows (assuming you did rm -rf ~/Documents and have it set up in /etc/fstab to mount the partition this target directory is on as /mnt/Windows), then this is all you'd need to do, to make a symbolic link to the directory:

ln -s /mnt/Windows/Users/spunk/Documents ~/Documents

Symbolic links are troublesome only if your files and directories move around a whole bunch, but it's also the most handy argument to use because directories and files can be symbolically link, because symbolic links reference the path of an item specifically to where it is. A more practical example for a symbolic link is if you're, for instance (one of many instances I've found it handy) if you want super-easy access to your hosts file on Linux, you'd simply copy /etc/hosts in a filespace which has user access for both you and root, then ln -s that file back into /etc/hosts as a symbolic link of the file.

Any time you want to open up your hosts file for editing, you'd simply do it and not need to use sudo or be forced into using pluma to open admin:///etc/hosts with a need to put your password in every so often while you're editing it.

:warning: This is coming from my understanding in Microsoft Windows. While articles talking about use of ln -P use similar language as links in Windows made with mklink /h I may sort of be talking out of my ass for this one, apologies if what I am about to display is ignorant of how ln works.

But what if you wanted something more persistent? A file you can delete access to, which still functions as the actual file not dependent on the path of another file? Specifically for files, you can create a physical link. Because after all, a "file" on a partition format which supports links is just a reference to an actual file on the disk. Back to the hosts example, you could use -P instead of -s to create a physical reference to the file.

But that also means to remove access to the file completely, all physical references must be deleted. Once the file on disk has all references orphaned from it, the file persists, the user only loses access to it and the space that file was on is labelled as "Free" space to overwrite it. So you have a limited time frame to regain access of files whose conventional means of access has been deleted before the file is corrupted with new content written over it.

I hope that helps you to understand links better. I'm not end-all be-all when it comes to this stuff, I just use what works for me and preach with that.

1 Like
#7

If there is one person in this communion I care about how he/she thinks about me.......
Is you @tiox .
This again is a close race, but you and only you contacted me personally way after our topic were running and thats a very important thing for me! I am not a "IT Person". What I wrote wasn’t accepted by who ever was watching my reply been written. And again the sensor is quit clear in the text with its "8 black Squares".
That actually said "moron", but forget all about this man.
So once again Brandon, THANK`YOU very much for your explanation and proper help.
:blush::v::balloon:
Regards
SpacePunk

#8

BTW for individual files, ln -P works just fine to create another physical reference. So you can make a file, create the link, delete the original, and the link should still function as that. In fact, for quick DB management where files are used in real-time it doesn't seem like a bad idea, so long limitations are not an issue to make a physical link since the original can be deleted and the link functions in its place, somewhere else on the media it is on. (Though, it is only the physical reference which had changed, not the actual data on that media.)

Once the file in real-time is not in use, simply delete it and change reference as necessary or keep the link; it may report as actual size but it's really just a handful of bytes.

1 Like
#9

Well.....
First of all a BIG CHEER`s :beer: to @stevecook172001 & @tiox for there enthusiasm and involvement on this topic. There handling all worked perfectly and both solved the issue. :+1:

Later on I bought my self a new hard-drive and did a new installation.
Now with a purchased preinstalled USB memory stick from OSDisc.com and not a
downloaded version of Ubuntu-MATE. Witch I have been fighting with all these years and never actually ended up with a installation that behaved....
Any-Ways....
To all you out there, do go and buy your self an preinstalled USB or DVD and save your self from most of the issues with a new installment.
I mean, its cheaper than a ■■■■■■■ toothbrush up her in Norway....

And Then Back to a "Bigger ROOT Partition"....
My new hard-drive had the size of 1TB and instead of going for just pushing "enter" through the installation I picked "SOMETHINGELSE" in the installment.
Hear I gave:

  1. The "Root" partition 300 GB. (Witch is just given 20 GB in the ordinary "Enter" installation).
  2. The "Swap"partition 200 GB. (Witch is only given "Twice of what you have in RAM").
  3. The "Home" partition ended up with the rest + all the extra "External HHD`s I have".
    WAIT....
    I was told to make a "small" partition in the end of "Partition 1" for the "EFI" security.
    & Now my computer runs as smoothly as I never experienced it......

So to all of you "GRAPHICAL USERS" take a look at this and try it out. You`ll get a steady machinery behind you wail you try to make out with the keyboard.

Regards
SpacePunk.

1 Like
#10

That's very weird, because I've never had a copy of a Linux system that didn't behave. For Windows I ended up using pendrivelinux's installer for MBR installations, though Balena Etcher is much better for installation in general for any partition table format.

On Ubuntu I would use Mintstick for this. Unless it's Pop!_OS which comes with Popsicle that is basically the same stuff. Either way I've been able to write images with those tools and have them work just fine.

I also saw on Balena's website they provide Linux AppImage files, which means you need AppImage dependencies installed and be familiar with that, but they also have package options for Ubuntu and Fedora available here. It's nice to know a Linux option is available for that tool.