Re: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:39, Goswin von Brederlow
<brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes:
> > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
> >
> > <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> >> - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
> >> problems for /boot.
> >
> > I believe that there are LILO patches for /boot on LVM. There's no
> > reason why GRUB and other boot loaders couldn't be updated in the same
> > manner. The most ...
>
> They don't now and there are way more bootloaders than just grub and
> lilo.
Yes there are way more boot loaders than GRUB and LILO. The task for the
developers of such boot loaders is easier because they can grab some source
from GRUB and LILO for some of these things.
> > But generally the best solution to such problems is to have a separate
> > partition for /boot. Red Hat defaults to an LVM install (including LVM
> > root) with a regular 100M partition for /boot, that works well.
>
> No lvm backup data available in case of superblock corruption. Bad
> idea. No booting with init=/bin/sh to patch things back together as /
> can't be mounted. Bad idea again.
If you are making backups of your machines (generally accepted to be a good
idea) then LVM metadata will be included in such backups. If you don't have
any backups then just reinstall the machine - it apparently doesn't have any
data worth keeping.
> / on lvm is a major pain in case of error and if you already need a
> seperate / partition adding another for /boot is a bit stupid.
/ on LVM allows for snapshot backups which are the most convenient method of
backup.
> >> - /usr can be easily network (shared accross the same arch) mounted
> >> while / (due to /etc) can't
> >
> > Why is this desirable in the days of large disks? There is no machine
> > for which I am responsible which has a disk space issue other than my
> > laptop. None of my machines has /usr taking any significant portion of
> > the disk space.
>
> I have two recently bought systems without disk. Just a small flash to
> boot from. Those mips based wireless and dsl routers from linksys and
> similar are very popular as well as meshcubes.
How much storage do the wireless and DSL routers have?
Flash devices up to 1G in size are quite common nowadays. Distributions that
can work with 32M of storage are still available (Familiar is one example).
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: