[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:42:31AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:

> > - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
> > problems for /boot.
> Why is that?

Missing bootloader support.

> > - a larger FS has more chance of failing so you risk having a fully
> > broken system more often
> And two file systems have even more chance. One read only file system is
> pretty stable.

Sure, that's why I have /usr mounted read-only.

> > - /usr can be easily network (shared accross the same arch) mounted
> > while / (due to /etc) can't
> > - / needs functioning device nodes on it while usr can be mounted nodev
> I agreee, those arguments and the netboot stuff is an argment for a smaller
> root partition. However our root filesystem is too big anyway.

That's true:

$ df -h
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda5              99M   75M   19M  80% /

$ du -sh /etc/gconf
26M     /etc/gconf

That's 1/3 of my root fs. It's damn too much.


     MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
                Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Reply to: