On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: > 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.
> > > Why should he make /tmp noexec, > > Security precaution. if you have 10+ users with access to the box. But a workstation, without even sshd running, it is not needed. And hey, why should /tmp noexec save you from anything? If someone is able to break into your box, he can build his tools in /home or /var/tmp or somewhere else. No need for /tmp. > > >> > 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. I don't because it is wasted effort. If someone has the right to write to a rw /usr/ partition, he has the rights to remount a ro /usr as rw and can go on.. It just makes maintance harder. > > Please also explain, how you seperate data areas (like > /var and /usr). I have /var and /usr? Why shuld I seperate them any further? > > >> > 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. if you have 20+ users on each of them, and every single one is a little cracker in disguisse, it may make sense, but for a single user box? No. > > >> > 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. 15% of the space on each partition. That sums up. > > > makes boot much longer. > > No, it doesn't. Not noticeably, at least. oh really? Have a look at the forums 'my *fs takes this and that long to mount' If every partition takes a second, it will be very noticable. > > > 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. more harddisks = higher chance that one of them dies. I had 4 simultaniously running harddisk once. I went down to one big one. Because every couple of month one disk died. It is simple math. The more disks, the higher the risk. > > Actually, as *you* see, there aren't many reasons and no good > reasons to do what you say. I haven't seen any good reason for a bazillion small partitions, that only increase your work and have to be monitored constantly (f* /var is full, f* /tmp is full f* I have to remount /usr). -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
