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

Re[6]: disk partition schemes

Hey Russell,

Friday, June 22, 2001, 7:22:41 PM, you wrote:

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

I guess I'm off here.  By getting messed up, I mean more by say a
sudden jolt in the power supply (of course, I do have a line
conditioning UPS) and mess up the partition table or something.

RC> OK.  So you want Cyrus storage on the file system used for user data.

That's the idea.  Let's see if I can get it to work :-P

RC> IFF you have separate physical hardware for the different file systems
RC> that will be true.  However you only have one physical device (the RAID 
RC> device) so this will not be a benefit.

Ahh, ok.  Thanks for correcting me here.

RC> Having /home and /tmp on separate devices to / gives some security
RC> benefits by limiting the ability to produce hard links.  Hard linking 
RC> /etc/passwd or /etc/shadow to a name under /tmp or the user's home 
RC> directory has been step 1 of a number of security attacks...

I didn't realize hard links couldn't cross partition boundaries.  I
tend to just use symlinks anyway.

RC> Having /tmp and /home on separate devices to the root FS limits the 
RC> ability of hostile users to perform such attacks.

So I see.

>> 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?

RC> Security as described above and stability regarding issues of lack of 
RC> space and/or Inodes.


RC> How will one partition or two partitions affect reliability?  Disk
RC> failures tend to be boolean things, if a disk starts dieing then all data 
RC> seems to rapidly disappear from it.  So in you don't have RAID then 
RC> having separate partitions is unlikely to save you.

Once again, I guess I was thinking messed up partition tables or
something.  Perhaps my logic was flawed.


Reply to: