Re: no deprecation of /usr as a standalone filesystem
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 01:11:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:
> > > - LVM and/or RAID: no real reason nowadays to not use these for the root
>
> As long as debian does not provide support for kernel independent non
> breaking initramfs support (i.e. not regenerated on every whim and
> break) having / outside lvm and no initramfs is a real plus.
You meant /boot right ?
> You can not mount / nodev if you don't use udev. But you /usr you can.
> What I'm trying to say is that read-only is not the only option that
> can differ between / and /usr.
What's the purposes of mounting /usr nodev as all directories there are
owned by root (or at least should be) ?
> >> - dmcrypt: not crypting /usr is just an optimization. E.g. on my laptop
> >> I decided to crypt only /home, and use symlinks for the few files in
> >> /etc which contain sensitive information, YMMV.
> >
> > Iâ??m the only one who quoted it, and I already find this is a minor use
> > case.
>
> Count me there too. Crypting /usr on a laptop just wastes performance
> and cpu which spells into real battery life. Although ecryptfs is
> probably a even better alternative.
Give me numbers please, crypting /usr in my experience wastes little
amount of CPU given that the in-ram cache is _not_ encrypted, so as long
you don't hit the disk, it costs almost nothing.
And as soon as you hit the disk, I'm told that the disk consumptions in
nowadays hardware wins over the CPU one from decryption. (I don't count
encryption as you usually very seldomly _write_ to /usr except when you
upgrade or install packages).
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Reply to: