Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>> > On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> >> Izar Ilun wrote:
>> >> > I say that, It'll be just:
>> >> > - /boot
>> >> > - swap
>> >> > - /home
>> >> > - / (all the rest)
>> >>
>> >> That's not advisable. I'd strongly suggest to create
>> >> filesystems for /boot, swap, /home, /opt, /usr, /var
>> >> and / (of course). This way you're more flexible
>> >> and also a bit safer (not such a high risk of running
>> >> out of space on /).
>> >
>> > and he wastes a lot of space,
>>
>> No, he doesn't. Where does he waste space?
>
> because you shall not fill up any partition more than 85% or fragmentation
> will go up insanly and performance go down to the bottom.
Yes, but we're no longer in the age, where 10GB hard
drives are high end. I do agree, that you might waste
a little bit of space. But that's it. And that's only
a theoretical value. Nothing to worry about in real
life.
>> > makes boot a lot longer
>>
>> Not really.
>
> yes, really.
jaja.
>> > and increases head
>> > movement.
>> >
>> > One big / (like 40 or 80GB) will be enough
>>
>> Yes, and it's obviously the worst solution. How do
>> you mount /tmp noexec? How do you mount /usr read-only?
>
> why should you mount /usr readonly,
Because you normally don't need write access to
/usr, unless:
> if you do your emerging always everyday?
...unless, you're writing.
> Why should he make /tmp noexec,
Security precaution.
>> > With that sizes, it is nearly impossible to fill / completly up.
>>
>> And it's impossible to have some flexibility.
>
> no, it is absolutly flexible
Ah. Please explain how you mount /tmp noexec and /usr
readonly.
Please also explain, how you seperate data areas (like
/var and /usr).
>> > To put everything on its own partition was good, when harddisks were
>> > 2gb-10gb big.
>>
>> And it's still good today.
>>
> no it is not
I see. Strange thing is, that about every server and workstation
I've seen more or less contradicts what you say.
>> > But today it is just a waste of space and time.
>>
>> No, it's absolutely not.
>
> yes it is. It wastes space,
Not really. Some. But not really.
> makes boot much longer.
No, it doesn't. Not noticeably, at least.
> More partitions = more
> haead movement = higher risk of damage. More partitions = more risk that one
> of the partitions dies = more risk of fatal data loss.
There's always backup.
> More partitions = less space available
Not really. Some. But not really.
If you're *SO* low on hard disk space, I'd advice to buy
more harddisks.
> You see, there are a lot of good reasons to keep the number of patitions low.
Actually, as *you* see, there aren't many reasons and no good
reasons to do what you say.
Alexander Skwar
--
It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails,
admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
--
[email protected] mailing list
