On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Gary Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:25:09PM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote: >> >> Really it boils down to lots of file systems to hold the OS adds >> administrative complexity and rarely saves more work than it creates. > > Some of us want to use different mount options on /var than on /. > That's why they need to be different filesystems. For example, our > policy is that anything containing user-writable directories must > be mounted without setuid and without devices. /tmp and /home must > also be separate filesystes, but this is generally already the case.
In your case, having separate file systems makes sense to me. You are using multiple file systems to implement a requirement that presumably came out of a risk analysis. I can respect that. My advice against lots of file systems is aimed at those that separate file systems because that's what the installer's defaults were or because of fear of some bug that may or may not have existed sometime last century. In the end, sysadmins that have a strong preference and those that have a requirement for separate file systems are not going to change in the near future. While the defaults may change (and have changed) over time, the option to support such configurations is a clear requirement going forward. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
