On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 02:59 -0400, Brad Sawatzky wrote: > If you're really stuck (ie. remote access to your box and you suspect fs > damage), get as close to single-user as you can (shutdown what you can > without hosing your connection), remount ro and give it a shot. (Having > /var and /home on separate partitions would help minimize problems.) > Not recommended though. Having /var and /home on separate partitions is not advisable/recommended? Is that what you are saying, the "/" and "/var" and "/home" all be on one filesystem? If that is the case, why not "/tmp" and "/usr" and "/usr/local", huh? I have to disagree with you. Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/sda2 975136 127620 847516 14% / tmpfs 1038080 0 1038080 0% /dev/shm /dev/sda1 135468 18781 115242 15% /boot /dev/sda7 975104 1456 973648 1% /tmp /dev/sda6 5845408 1702848 4142560 30% /usr /dev/sda5 3893504 1682560 2210944 44% /var /dev/mapper/datavg-homeLV 31441920 13232872 18209048 43% /home tmpfs 10240 736 9504 8% /dev /dev/mapper/datavg-usr.localLV 22787256 2645304 20101952 12% /usr/local That right there is a typical installation. I am guessing you have never actually supported large numbers of users. This particular machine hosts 15 domains and plus their sub-domains. Can you honestly tell me how you arrived at your conclusion? If it is reasonable, you might change my mind. -- greg, firstname.lastname@example.org The technology that is Stronger, Better, Faster: Linux Use Debian GNU/Linux, its a bazaar thing NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly without probable cause. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part