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

Re: what to take off the root partition



On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 09:08:20AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Friday December 21 2007 08:56:46 Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 03:27:33PM +1100, Owen Townend wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 20:29 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Thursday December 20 2007 15:48:19 Alex Samad wrote:
> > > > > I have allocated 10G to my root partition in an effort to
> > > > > kiss the system.
> > > >
> > > > Kiss the system?????
> > > >
> > > > >              So I have farmed of /home and /var/log and I
> > > > > am about to do /usr/local nothing really in here that i
> > > > > really need on the root partition
> > > > >
> > > > > My question is around /usr/share should/could I move this
> > > > > of to another partition ?
> > > > >
> > > > > my rootfs is on a raid1 native (HD ) partition,
> > > > > everything else is on lvm partitions
My aim for a simple root fs is when i have to boot with init=/bin/bash, which I 
have had to do previously.  I don't want to have to wade through lvm and mdm 
(my lvm sits on top of raid) to get access to the base tools.

> > > >
> > > > /home should *always* be on it's own partition.  /var/log
> > > > should be on it's own partition if this is a server that
> > > > does more than serve MP3s to the other PCs in your house. 
> > > > Given the size of modern disks, I see no reason to move
> > > > /usr out of the root partition.
My only unfortunate situation is that I have only 10G for /, and I am starting 
to feel the pinch.  It has lasted me for 8 years
> > >
> > >   kiss = keep it simple, stupid
> > >
> > >   It's a philosophy whereby complexity for the sake of it is
> > > frowned upon.
> >
> > Splitting up the Filesystem isn't complexity for complexity's
> > sake, it has good historical precedence.
> 
> Sure: HDDs used to be tiny.  You *needed* to split trees across 
> multiple devices, and RAID controllers were *really* expensive.
My main reason for splitting is space, all my subgroupings (/home/alex, 
/home/X?) allow that user to have all their space, fill it up and not have to 
worry I am not going to have any space left for incoming mail.  Specially with 
multimedia editing, 1-2G hear and another copy their and one or 2 more copies 
and you can take up a lot of space.

> 
> >                                           Granted that with 
> > Debian's single-user mode mounting all the filesystems and
> > having some difficulty if they don't makes things less clear. 
> > There can be some security benefits depending on what mount
> > options you use for which filesystems.  Eg, nodev for
> > everything but /, ro for /usr, perhaps noatime for /usr.  If
> > some run-away process starts writing to disk, and it is running
> > as root, it can fill up a filesystem.  Better that this be
> > /home, /var, or even /usr than /.
> 
> The real reason that /home should always be on it's own partition 
> is *upgrading*.  If you re-install from scratch, having /home 
> in / will destroy it.  A separate /home retains the data.  
> (Unless the installer is brain-dead.)
> 
> And while my home machine's /var/log is in /, I did mention that 
> on a production server it can be wise.
I think once you have been bitten by a full / because /var/log is filling up 
you never place /var/log on root
> 
> > Splitting things up is also useful if you have more than one
> > box and you want to share some.  Granted, this is less useful
> > for /usr in Debian where everything is pre-packaged than if you
> > are compiling.
> >
> > Doug.
> 
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> Jefferson, LA  USA
> 
> "Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an
> excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a
> conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all."
> John W. Gardner

Thanks for all the comments


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: