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

Re: Bug#652275: Guided partitioning should not offer separate /usr, /var, and /tmp partitions; leave that to manual partitioning

Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> writes:

> Russ Allbery wrote:
>>Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> writes:
>>> In all of the recent discussions about separate /usr partitions, most
>>> people seem to acknowledge them as unusual, special-purpose
>>> configurations, even those who use them.  To the extent they have a use
>>> at all, they primarily have a use for people who have very specific
>>> reasons for wanting them, and all of those people will know how to
>>> handle partitioning.  To a lesser extent, that holds true for having
>>> separate partitions for /var, /tmp, or other top-level directories.  It
>>> seems likely that any such setup will have custom requirements.
>> I don't think these things are alike.  Separating /var and /tmp from the
>> rest of the file systems is done because those partitions contain varying
>> amounts of data and often fill if something goes wrong, but can fill
>> without impacting the rest of the system and allowing easy recovery if
>> they're not on the same partition as everything else.
> Exactly what I had in mind when I said "To a lesser extent". :)

There are strong reasons for a seperat /tmp and /var partitions. Most
importantly because both are writable and written to.

/tmp should default to tmpfs and D-I should not create a partition for
it normaly. There could be recipies for a sperate /tmp partition but it
shouldn't be the default. I agree that people that need a seperate /tmp
partition will know that they do.

As for /var that should be a seperate partition. The default setup
should allow / to be mounted read-only even if that isn't the default.
Besides that it also reduces fragmentation and lessens the risk of
filesystem corruption on /. Overall it is a good idea and having it a
seperate partition is no burden for the normal user.

> I still think the general statement applies: "It seems likely that any
> such setup will have custom requirements.".  Anyone installing a server
> probably either wants one of the two other guided setups (all-in-one or
> separate /home) or wants the manual partitioner because they have
> specific ideas about which partitions and sizes they want.  Thus, I
> think the guided partitioner shouldn't offer a generic
> pile-o'-partitions option, and particularly not one with a separate
> /usr.
> - Josh Triplett

Imho the default should be /, /var and /home as LVM LVs and /tmp as
tmpfs. It is minimal but flexible.


Reply to: