Re: Misleading Debian's installer choice
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:02:49 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
(...)
> First, I always found the `mount point' expression weird in this
> context, because, for me, the mount point _is_ always the partition,
> during the installation, but this is not the problem.
"Mount point" or "bind" yes, at last in means where do you want to put
your files based upon your partitioning scheme.
> The biggest problem is that you are able to choose between, say, `/',
> `/var/', '/usr/', `/home/', etc. But, without thinking a lot, `/'
> *habitually* contains the rest. So, mounting say `/' on hda1, and
> `/home/' on hdb1 could appear as weird for the user, at first glance
> (only).
It depends. There are many situations and setups where having a separate
disk and/or partition is a very good choice (speed or security/redundancy
gains).
(side note: one thing I found very pleasant about Debian is that it has a
very good and a lot of documentation):
***
C.3. Recommended Partitioning Scheme
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/apcs03.html.en
***
Anyway, experience will tell you what path to follow.
> What do you think about this? (I'm known for my outlandish ideas, so,
> don't be angry if I'm wrong.)
Partitioning strategies can be very fine-grained and mainly based on the
machine target and the type of the services that will host.
I personally do not like having many partitions so with "small" disks
(<500 GiB) usually make 2 "slices": swap and root ("/")... and have many
backups around there :-)
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: