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

Re[4]: disk partition schemes

Hey Russell,

Friday, June 22, 2001, 11:07:37 AM, you wrote:

RC> What exactly will that save you from?  If the root FS gets messed up then
RC> having a separate /boot won't gain you much...

I was thinking the other way around actually.  If /boot were to get messed up,
it wouldn't affect /.

RC> I suggest creating /home/mail and linking /var/spool/mail to it.  However
RC> if you want decent performance for email you want to use Maildir.  By 
RC> default maildir storage goes into user's home directories which solves 
RC> this issue.

Well, I'll be using Cyrus IMAPd.  Doesn't use Maildir, but does create separate
folders per user.  Thus, the spool is really not going to hold data much.
However long it takes to rip data off incoming (using postfix) and send it out,
or however long to hand it off to lmtpd and let cyrus deliver it.

RC> If you have two partitions on the same physical media (in this case a
RC> RAID-10) then expect to lose performance.  If you make it all one large 
RC> partition then the file system drivers can optimise things more.

Oh.  Guess I didn't quite understand how disk I/O functioned.  I figured
something like /var, which will have a lot of synchronous writes, would get
better performance outside of / or /home.

RC> I recommend having a separate /home to limit the things that can go
RC> wrong.  I recommend leaving /var on the root file system unless you need 
RC> a lot of space in /var.

Just from a performance point of view or for other reasons?

RC> Also consider a separate file system for 
RC> /var/tmp and make /tmp a sym-linke to /var/tmp/tmp .

Once again . . . just for stability?  security?

>> 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?

RC> RAID has no relevance to the issue of partitioning in this sense.

Well, my point here was, with the RAID 10, I already have a pretty good amount
of reliability, as if one drive fails, the system can still function.  And with
disks that are pretty reliable to begin with, I wasn't sure if the combination
of all these would merit just one large / fs.

Thanks again.


Reply to: