Re: /usr/home vs /home
On 11/24/11 10:42, krad wrote: > On 22 November 2011 13:36, C. P. Ghost wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM, <"Thomas Mueller >> wrote: >>> But I don't see any advantage to putting /, /usr, and /var on separate >> partitions. >>> >>> Tom >> >> Regarding separate /usr and /var: the advantage is that you can >> keep /usr read-only which is also important for security reasons >> since modifying system binaries becomes less easy. >> >> Furthermore, you can NFS share a read-only /usr among many >> similar machines, while /var is a per-machine specific read-write >> area. >> >> -cpghost. >> >> -- >> Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ >> ___ >> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >> > > > I always have /var and /tmp on separate file systems than /, but dont > normally have a separate /usr, bur I have a /usr/local. > > I like to keep the /var and /tmp fs separate as they as other are > mentioned. Therefore they are more prone to corruption in event of the > power failure. Keeping / separate in this case should make the system more > likely to reboot. Also it stops application filling up / which can stop you > logging into the system (I havent seen this issue for year admittedly) > > /usr/local is just for tidyness as it keeps base os separate from ports etc > > I also have /home on a separate as well to stops users filling up root as > well. > > my zfsroot boxes have this setup as well, but i also add a few reservations > and quotas. For my experiences in the past with OpenLDAP, which keeps its databases by default in /var, I had a lot of inconsistencies triggered due to the port OpenLDAP itself or DB4. I do not care about who caused the inconsistency, but after a reboot, the /var filesystem had to be fsck'ed or was completely trunkated and needed to be reformatted. If this happens to /var when /var is a part of / as a whole, then good night ... ;-) Sorry for the sloppy statement. I'd like to know how many big-company-server systems do have separated partitions and a lucky to have an easy way to repair in compare to home users with their home boxes using a linux like whole one partition ... and compared to that the failures and times to repair the filesystem. Regards, Oliver ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: /usr/home vs /home
On 22 November 2011 13:36, C. P. Ghost wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM, <"Thomas Mueller > wrote: > > But I don't see any advantage to putting /, /usr, and /var on separate > partitions. > > > > Tom > > Regarding separate /usr and /var: the advantage is that you can > keep /usr read-only which is also important for security reasons > since modifying system binaries becomes less easy. > > Furthermore, you can NFS share a read-only /usr among many > similar machines, while /var is a per-machine specific read-write > area. > > -cpghost. > > -- > Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ > ___ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > I always have /var and /tmp on separate file systems than /, but dont normally have a separate /usr, bur I have a /usr/local. I like to keep the /var and /tmp fs separate as they as other are mentioned. Therefore they are more prone to corruption in event of the power failure. Keeping / separate in this case should make the system more likely to reboot. Also it stops application filling up / which can stop you logging into the system (I havent seen this issue for year admittedly) /usr/local is just for tidyness as it keeps base os separate from ports etc I also have /home on a separate as well to stops users filling up root as well. my zfsroot boxes have this setup as well, but i also add a few reservations and quotas. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: /usr/home vs /home
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM, <"Thomas Mueller wrote: > But I don't see any advantage to putting /, /usr, and /var on separate > partitions. > > Tom Regarding separate /usr and /var: the advantage is that you can keep /usr read-only which is also important for security reasons since modifying system binaries becomes less easy. Furthermore, you can NFS share a read-only /usr among many similar machines, while /var is a per-machine specific read-write area. -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: /usr/home vs /home
On 11/22/11 12:08, Hendrik Hasenbein wrote: > On 22.11.2011 11:30, "Thomas Mueller >> In the old days home was typically a separate partition that was >>> mounted on /home. If you didn't have a partition the installer >>> would create /usr/home and symlink /home to it. The root was also >>> typically an independent partition, so it made sense not to clutter >>> it up with home directories. >> >>> Now that the default behavior is to use one big partition, the >>> installer defaults to /usr/home + symlink. >> >>> I've always liked the more succinct /home and was wondering if >>> there is any reason why not to delete the symlink and move home to >>> / to mimic the old many partition style? >> >>> thanks, dave c >> >> My preference is to use the traditional /home, on a separate >> partition. That way, user data can be kept safe in the case of a >> major upgrading or revamping of the system. >> >> This principle is even applicable for MS-Windows, even if the >> user-data partition is not called "home". >> >> A Linux user can run two or more distributions sharing the same /home >> with each other, but not the same /home as for FreeBSD because of >> different file system. >> >> bsdinstall on FreeBSD 9.0-BETA1 changed my /home to a symlink to >> /usr/home, but I changed it back to my preference. >> >> I read that PC-BSD considers /usr/home to be correct. >> >> I agree with Martin Sugioarto on preparing the >> disks myself rather than letting the installer do it. bsdinstall >> only made things more difficult for partitioning the disk, not >> allowing enough space, and also bsdinstall's boot partition was >> nonfunctional for me. >> >> But I don't see any advantage to putting /, /usr, and /var on >> separate partitions. > > This might not be an universal advantage, but it is good to keep the > choice. For example / could reside on a small flash memory built-in on > the mainboard. /usr and /homes are mounted from different fileservers > and /var is on a usb flash drive inside the case, because / is already > filled. > > mata ne, > Hendrik Substantially it is irrelevant where the home-directory resides as long as it doesn't have any serious performance implications or anything else. Our homes resides on a dedicated ZFS volume and are mounted on /home since many Linux systems we use for HPC duties also expect their homes "by default" at /home. But there is indeed on critical issue. In some cases where it is allowed to log in as a user even no home folder could be mounted - say due to a failure of the ZFS subsystem or due to failure of mounting from a NAS/SAN or other kind of server - the "dead" mountpoint as empty as it is resides in the "/" filesystem which is usually very small. We/I preferr to use a legacy traditional partitioning of the directory structure with fixed partitions for /, var,/ var/tmp, /usr, /usr/local, /usr/obj, /usr/src and /usr/ports. It is, indeed, a huge waste of space, but under some critical circumstances it is much easier and more healthy for the system to "repair" only one partition with a subset of data than a mega-partition containing everything. well, in such a case, with a small "/", users are able to fill up, by accident or by intention, "/" which then could end up in a stuck system (if /tmp is also residing as a folder and not a partition in /). Havin the homes in /usr/home or even /usr/local/home (latter seems more logical to me since /usr is SYSTEM, and except root's home everything else is a local issue, also the additional homes for users). Regards, Oliver ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: /usr/home vs /home
On 22.11.2011 11:30, "Thomas Mueller > In the old days home was typically a separate partition that was >> mounted on /home. If you didn't have a partition the installer >> would create /usr/home and symlink /home to it. The root was also >> typically an independent partition, so it made sense not to clutter >> it up with home directories. > >> Now that the default behavior is to use one big partition, the >> installer defaults to /usr/home + symlink. > >> I've always liked the more succinct /home and was wondering if >> there is any reason why not to delete the symlink and move home to >> / to mimic the old many partition style? > >> thanks, dave c > > My preference is to use the traditional /home, on a separate > partition. That way, user data can be kept safe in the case of a > major upgrading or revamping of the system. > > This principle is even applicable for MS-Windows, even if the > user-data partition is not called "home". > > A Linux user can run two or more distributions sharing the same /home > with each other, but not the same /home as for FreeBSD because of > different file system. > > bsdinstall on FreeBSD 9.0-BETA1 changed my /home to a symlink to > /usr/home, but I changed it back to my preference. > > I read that PC-BSD considers /usr/home to be correct. > > I agree with Martin Sugioarto on preparing the > disks myself rather than letting the installer do it. bsdinstall > only made things more difficult for partitioning the disk, not > allowing enough space, and also bsdinstall's boot partition was > nonfunctional for me. > > But I don't see any advantage to putting /, /usr, and /var on > separate partitions. This might not be an universal advantage, but it is good to keep the choice. For example / could reside on a small flash memory built-in on the mainboard. /usr and /homes are mounted from different fileservers and /var is on a usb flash drive inside the case, because / is already filled. mata ne, Hendrik signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: /usr/home vs /home
> In the old days home was typically a separate partition that was > mounted on /home. If you didn't have a partition the installer would > create /usr/home and symlink /home to it. The root was also typically > an independent partition, so it made sense not to clutter it up with > home directories. > Now that the default behavior is to use one big partition, the > installer defaults to /usr/home + symlink. > I've always liked the more succinct /home and was wondering if there > is any reason why not to delete the symlink and move home to / to > mimic the old many partition style? > thanks, > dave c My preference is to use the traditional /home, on a separate partition. That way, user data can be kept safe in the case of a major upgrading or revamping of the system. This principle is even applicable for MS-Windows, even if the user-data partition is not called "home". A Linux user can run two or more distributions sharing the same /home with each other, but not the same /home as for FreeBSD because of different file system. bsdinstall on FreeBSD 9.0-BETA1 changed my /home to a symlink to /usr/home, but I changed it back to my preference. I read that PC-BSD considers /usr/home to be correct. I agree with Martin Sugioarto on preparing the disks myself rather than letting the installer do it. bsdinstall only made things more difficult for partitioning the disk, not allowing enough space, and also bsdinstall's boot partition was nonfunctional for me. But I don't see any advantage to putting /, /usr, and /var on separate partitions. Tom ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: /usr/home vs /home
Am Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:15:36 -1000 schrieb David Cornejo : > I've always liked the more succinct /home and was wondering if there > is any reason why not to delete the symlink and move home to / to > mimic the old many partition style? Hi David, I like the idea of having /usr/home better, because if you don't want to have a separate partition for homes, you would at least have a huge partition (/usr) and won't run out of space quickly. If you create /home, you'll assign the rootfs space to users without a home partitions and rootfs is typically small. FreeBSD is totally fine with /home mountpoint. It won't work differently. I consider the installer procedure as a quick way to install FreeBSD. It is for people who want to try something. And you don't want to have all these "help! my rootfs is full!" support questions and explain the same thing over and over again. I think, I'm not alone when I say that I prepare the disks myself instead of using the installer. I don't even know if the new installer will be capable of installing FreeBSD like I have it installed now. -- Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
/usr/home vs /home
Hi, In the old days home was typically a separate partition that was mounted on /home. If you didn't have a partition the installer would create /usr/home and symlink /home to it. The root was also typically an independent partition, so it made sense not to clutter it up with home directories. Now that the default behavior is to use one big partition, the installer defaults to /usr/home + symlink. I've always liked the more succinct /home and was wondering if there is any reason why not to delete the symlink and move home to / to mimic the old many partition style? thanks, dave c ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
