Re: Full-screen ed Now: partitions
On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 09:07, Rob Ransbottom wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2002, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > Dumb question: in this era of HUGE drives, why put /usr on a
> > separate partition? I've only got:
> > / - used 3GB
> > /boot - used 6MB
> > /home - used 2GB
> > /var - used 5GB
> > /usr/local/data - used 32GB (where all big data files go).
> >
> > Putting /usr in a separate partition, IMO, is a relic from when
> > a 250MB drive was considered huge.
>
> I disagree.
>
> For single user systems this is often of little import.
> For larger systems it is about user control, damage containment,
> and administrative ease.
>
> /usr may be a read-only filesystem.
>
> A runaway program may only fill one filesystem.
>
> A small root partition is less likely to be struck by badness.
> This seems old-fashioned as drive reliability has improved. But
> when the drive suddenly starts to wobble and uptime shrinks
> dramatically, it may seem a prudent thing to have.
>
> A /tmp partition gives a size to a userland playground and keeps
> such play separate. Some sites with small disk quotas for users
> encourage users to use /tmp when they need space for a build or
> whatever.
>
> Differing backup needs can be contained in different partitions. My
> /pub partition has stuff that I could get off the internet again,
> the backup policy is very slack. My /local partition is locally
> generated stuff and foreign stuff that would be difficult to reimport,
> it has a more rigorous backup scheldule.
I can totally understand that. Your system's /pub and /local are
in the same theme as my /usr/local/data, and, yes, /tmp in another
partition is best.
Crazy idea: put /etc in it's own small partition, then along with
the partitions that you and I described, / (including /bin, /sbin
and /opt) could be read-only. Question: would it then be impossible
to mount DVDs, CDs, etc in /mnt?
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment |
| by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding." |
| Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v US (1928) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: