Re[6]: disk partition schemes
Hey Russell,
Friday, June 22, 2001, 7:22:41 PM, you wrote:
>> I was thinking the other way around actually. If /boot were to get
>> messed up, it wouldn't affect /.
I guess I'm off here. By getting messed up, I mean more by say a
sudden jolt in the power supply (of course, I do have a line
conditioning UPS) and mess up the partition table or something.
RC> OK. So you want Cyrus storage on the file system used for user data.
That's the idea. Let's see if I can get it to work :-P
RC> IFF you have separate physical hardware for the different file systems
RC> that will be true. However you only have one physical device (the RAID
RC> device) so this will not be a benefit.
Ahh, ok. Thanks for correcting me here.
RC> Having /home and /tmp on separate devices to / gives some security
RC> benefits by limiting the ability to produce hard links. Hard linking
RC> /etc/passwd or /etc/shadow to a name under /tmp or the user's home
RC> directory has been step 1 of a number of security attacks...
I didn't realize hard links couldn't cross partition boundaries. I
tend to just use symlinks anyway.
RC> Having /tmp and /home on separate devices to the root FS limits the
RC> ability of hostile users to perform such attacks.
So I see.
>> RC> Also consider a separate file system for
>> RC> /var/tmp and make /tmp a sym-linke to /var/tmp/tmp .
>>
>> Once again . . . just for stability? security?
RC> Security as described above and stability regarding issues of lack of
RC> space and/or Inodes.
Ok.
RC> How will one partition or two partitions affect reliability? Disk
RC> failures tend to be boolean things, if a disk starts dieing then all data
RC> seems to rapidly disappear from it. So in you don't have RAID then
RC> having separate partitions is unlikely to save you.
Once again, I guess I was thinking messed up partition tables or
something. Perhaps my logic was flawed.
--
Kevin
Reply to: