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

Re[2]: disk partition schemes

Hey Russell,

Friday, June 22, 2001, 9:17:12 AM, you wrote:

RC> On Friday 15 June 2001 16:13, Kevin J. Menard, Jr. wrote:
>>     This system would be used mostly for web-hosting, so I was figuring
>> a large /home partition.  Likewise only one or two kernels max, so I
>> figured a small /boot.  And finally, and this is really where I'm

RC> Why do you need a separate partition for /boot?  Why not just have it in 
RC> the root fs?

Dunno.  Figured for disk failure or something.

RC> Problems with booting from partitions >2G were solved ages ago, your root 
RC> file system should fit into 8G (although even that limit doesn't apply if 
RC> your BIOS is new enough).

Yeap, I don't have this limitation.

>> looking for help, it will be used as an IMAP/SMTP machine.  So, should
>> I create a separate /var partition?  I'm hesitant because I don't want
>> to a) not create a large enough partition, or b) create too large of

RC> I suggest having your email stored on the same file system as /home.  
RC> Then you have all of your customer data on the same file system for easy 
RC> backup.  Also it saves juggling space.

Would a symlink from /var to /home/var be sufficient?

>> one and waste space.  Do the performance gains outweigh this?  (I'm not
>> terribly worried about the redundancy with the RAID 10 and all).

RC> What performance gains are you referring to?

Any that might occur from having separate partitions.

So, if you recommend /boot be with / and /var with /home, why not just have /
and everything in there?  Is this reliable enough?  Today's hard drives have
come a long way, and with a RAID 10, would I be safe in doing this?  Or should I
just have a coulple gig / and the rest for /home?



Reply to: