RBW wrote: > >John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > >>RBW wrote: > >> > >>>I'm looking at my options for implementing LVM on my laptop which > >>>has a @40GB HD. > >> > >> > >>WIth a laptop with such small hard drive, i would make it all one big / > >>partition. > >> > >>I know this goes against everything they ever taught you in Server > >>School. A laptop is not a server, so don't treat it like one. > > Hey JHRV! What server school!!
JHRV would be my son :) I can get him to type an answer, if you like . . . > And that multiple partition strategy for Linux has been around for a > long time even when HD's were even less than this size... right, right?? Yes. They have. However, you would often see, on the server side, multiple spindles. More disks and their mount-points. Have a 500MB for /, a 2GB for /var, 2GB for /usr and 5 GB for /home. Four drives, four partitions. > I originally understood the multiple partition strategy as being a way > to (among other reasons) to isolate a partitoin that ended up needing an > fsck when it had problems back before, as I mentioned, journaling file > systems got so good and back in the ext2 days (fingers crossed, I > haven't had to do one of those in years...). There were a few reasons. One of which being LILO not reading past a certain point of a hard drive, so you have a small / or /boot near the beginning. No longer an issue, for either LILO or GRUB Another being keeping / small so if a drive error occurs, / has less of a chance of getting nailed. Still applicable. Good backups mitigate this. The third being an errant process that fills up (say) /var won't touch / (of / fills up, things can get Really Interesting. Of course, when /var fills up, things also get Really Interesting so your mileage may vary). Similarly, a user filling up $HOME won't touch / or /var. A laptop is usually not a multi-user system, so you don't need those protections. Quotas also prevent Evil People from filling up partitions. I am certain interested people can come up with more reasons why a good partitioning scheme is A Good Thing and I likely will not argue. My only point is that a laptop does not have the same concerns. A desktop or a server . . . totally different story. > Anyway symlinks it is until the next desktop... You can also use bind mounts. This is what I have done in the past. I find it to be a *little* bit cleaner than symlinks. That is just my opinion. though > Thanks All! You are welcome! -john or, as Lan calls me, -jhriv -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
