On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I always installed linux with one large partition ever since the
> limitation on
> the boot code disk position was removed
[... snipped ...]
> The micro-management required to handle multiple partitions just never
> occured to me
> as worthy the trouble it's supposedly trying to avoid.
Disks do go bad, you know. And this means that eventually one partition
will be destroyed.
The one most likely to be destroyed is the one with the most activity of
temporary files i.e. /tmp or /var.
So you want them to have their own partitions.
The /usr partition can be mounted RO except when you install/upgrade
software and/or recompile the kernel. So make it a separate partition.
> As for the "you can always move directories around and sym-link them" -
> that's
> the single most compelling argument AGAINST multiple-partitions, the
> spaghetti
> you get on the filesystem can become a real nightmare.
Nowadays, a more likely scenario is that once a partition becomes 80%
full, you add another hard disk to the computer, and move part of the
almost-full partition to the new disk and symlink to it.
Then, when you have the time for this, upgrade to a bigger hard disk.
--- Omer
My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
I may be affiliated in any way.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
