On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 01:39:11PM -0400, Nick Cabatoff wrote: > On Aug 16, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > No, it isn't. There isn't a single good reason to partition a disk into > > little chunks on a end-user workstation - and these days there are some > > valid but generally not very important reasons to do it on a server. > > Here's a few: > > * Even if it's a workstation, it may not be maintained by the person who > sits at it, and it may have more than one account on it. A user > shouldn't be able to incapacitate it, which may well occur when /tmp or > /var gets filled. How does putting /tmp on its own partition keep it from getting filled up? If anything, it will fill up faster if it has less than 100% of the available drive space assigned to it. This argument is a non-starter for the single-user desktop. > * If you have a workstation farm (as we do), it's nice to have a uniform > size /usr, or at least a known minimum size; that way we can ensure that [snip] > * If you can make /usr readonly (even if only effectively), then backups > are much faster and simpler. We backup /var and sometimes / on many of > our workstations, and wouldn't want to include /usr and /tmp... if > you're using dump, you have to take the whole filesystem. [snip] > We actually create 5 partitions (+swap): /, /tmp, /var, /usr, and > /usr/cnoc (in addition to any local partitions used as home or local The rest of these are site policies and have no bearing on what debian should use as a default partitioning scheme. Mike Stone
Attachment:
pgpjg3T7mz5iD.pgp
Description: PGP signature