On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Pandu Poluan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2012 2:00 PM, "Alan McKinnon" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:04:00 +0700 >> Pandu Poluan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I am seriously thinking of splitting the storage of directories >> > under /usr, e.g., /usr/portage and /usr/source actually living >> > somewhere else, on different partition and different filesystem. >> > Let's say something mounted on /mnt/Persistent. >> > >> > My question: should I use bindmount or symlinks to do that? What's the >> > drawbacks/benefits for either? >> > >> > Rgds, >> >> You should do neither as they do not give you split storage, they >> both give you the same thing in two different places. >> >> Create two new filesystems and mount them. >> >> I personally use /var/portage as there is no good reason for it to be >> under /usr where it is just clutter. >> >> Code goes in /usr >> Data goes in /var >> >> You have to change PORTDIR in /etc/make.conf for this to work as well >> as /etc/make.profile. Nothing breaks without it, you just get errors >> from portage >> > > Eh? But I put portage, src, share, etc. on a different partition mounted > under /mnt ... doesn't that mean I am using a split filesystem?
You are; but in an incredible complicated and convulted way. If I'm understanding you, you want: fstab: /dev/XX /mnt/p1 ... /dev/YY /mnt/p2 ... and then /usr/portage -> /mnt/p1 /usr/src -> /mnt/p2 (or using bindmounting, whatever). This makes no sense at all (at least not to me), when you can simply: fstab: /dev/XX /usr/portage ... /dev/YY /usr/src ... and get the same split filesystem, but without all the complication you are proposing. Unless there is something I don't understand, in which case I'm not following your reasoning. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
