Re: Why /usr/local/etc???
Gary Kline wrote: This may have been covered too-often before, buy why can't *everything* related to /etc hang off /etc? I can create a symlink in /etc to /usr/local/etc named loc or local. Thing is, why this isn't done by default? Mostly historical reasons. The typical Unix filesystem layout was developed in the days when disk capacities were measured in Megabytes and they were a lot less reliable than they are today. Hence it was important to have a separate root filesystem small enough to fit on one drive and containing everything needed to boot the system -- and ideally, if your root disk failed, you'ld have a spare drive with identical contents to fall back upon. Other file systems were created generally one to a disk and mounted as required -- so you'ld have separate /tmp, /var, /usr, /usr/local, /home etc. If the filesystem grew beyond what one disk could support, you'ld have to create and mount a new filesystem on another disk and move content onto it. RAIDing disks together to make larger filesystems was developed as a response to the limitations of the hardware of that generation, but in those early days it was unlikely you'ld be able to boot from a RAIDed partition. Failures of disks providing other filesystems could be handled by recovery from backup, so long as you had that basic and as minimal as possible bootable root partition. Nowadays, the situation is turned on its head. Disks are very much larger than the space required to install the OS, and they are both reliable[*] and pretty cheap. Server class motherboards generally assume you're going to mirror a pair of disks together to provide resilience. There are also any number of portable disk equivalents that a system can be booted off in an emergency: memory sticks, compact flash, live CDs etc. all generally big enough to hold a complete bootable system. However there is no overriding reason to rearrange the filesystems. Oh, there are arguments about does the root partition still need to be kept separate (personally, I'd say no it doesn't: one big partition to hold it all is much simpler to administer, but opinions differ) but nothing that makes change imperative. I do think that there is potential for some sort of rearrangement due to the increasing popularity of virtualization and similar techniques, where reusing filesystem content as far as possible pays big efficiency dividends. I'd see filesystems divided into three classes depending on content: generic -- user home directories, web content, databases, system sources, the ports tree etc. that you'ld want to share or be able to migrate across all instances; arch specific -- kernel, binaries, shlibs, /usr/obj, binary package collections which are tied to the CPU architecture and the OS version and finally instance specific -- configuration data (ie /etc, /usr/local/etc), log files, temporary and swap spaces. It's not excessively difficult to make this sort of split with existing layouts, but it is more complicated than it needs to be. Cheers, Matthew [*] Well, compared to 20 years ago they are. -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Why /usr/local/etc???
You gave a very good explaination with many background information; there's just something I'd like to add. On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:18:41 +0100, Matthew Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However there is no overriding reason to rearrange the filesystems. Oh, there are arguments about does the root partition still need to be kept separate (personally, I'd say no it doesn't: one big partition to hold it all is much simpler to administer, but opinions differ) but nothing that makes change imperative. The two main layout concepts all in one and everything separate have their advantages and disadvantages. As you mentioned, having everything within one partition saves you from calculating disk space needed vs. disk space available (Oops, /usr is full!). But separate partitions allow you to backup data partition-wise onto media that's big enough (usually tape), so you can dump everything 1:1 and restore it 1:1 - just as you left it. I'd see filesystems divided into three classes depending on content: generic -- user home directories, web content, databases, system sources, the ports tree etc. that you'ld want to share or be able to migrate across all instances; arch specific -- kernel, binaries, shlibs, /usr/obj, binary package collections which are tied to the CPU architecture and the OS version and finally instance specific -- configuration data (ie /etc, /usr/local/etc), log files, temporary and swap spaces. It's not excessively difficult to make this sort of split with existing layouts, but it is more complicated than it needs to be. Maybe you're interested in reading this discussion: http://www.osnews.com/comments/20207 It mostly deals with Linux file system layout, but go see PC-BSD and the concepts they introduced with their PBI packages. -- Polytropon From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why /usr/local/etc???
Folks, This may have been covered too-often before, buy why can't *everything* related to /etc hang off /etc? I can create a symlink in /etc to /usr/local/etc named loc or local. Thing is, why this isn't done by default? gary -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why /usr/local/etc???
Gary Kline writes: This may have been covered too-often before, buy why can't *everything* related to /etc hang off /etc? I can create a symlink in /etc to /usr/local/etc named loc or local. Thing is, why this isn't done by default? Very short version: /etc = stuff installed by FreeBSD /usr/local/ete = stuff installed by third-party applications The exception is the _ENABLE variables for those third-party applications, which go in /etc/rc.conf so they can be started at system boot. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why /usr/local/etc???
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:24:48 -0700, Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Folks, This may have been covered too-often before, buy why can't *everything* related to /etc hang off /etc? I can create a symlink in /etc to /usr/local/etc named loc or local. Thing is, why this isn't done by default? Maybe you're coming from a Linux background, so this may be a valid question. To introduce, FreeBSD differs between just the OS, the things that you install from sysinstall first, and everything else, the things you install from the ports collection or from the precompiled packages. Things that do belong to the OS is located everywhere outside /usr/local, and everything else is located inside /usr/local, replicating the subtrees of bin/, lib/, include/, share/ and etc/. Summarized: In /etc there's the system's configuration, and in /usr/local/etc there are configurations and settings for ports and packages you added. As you may see, this is well intended. Feel free to read % man 7 hier for a more detailed explaination. -- Polytropon From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why /usr/local/etc???
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:24:48 -0700 Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Folks, This may have been covered too-often before, buy why can't *everything* related to /etc hang off /etc? I can create a symlink in /etc to /usr/local/etc named loc or local. Thing is, why this isn't done by default? Everything could be off / too but that's not how FreeBSD does it. See man 7 heir. Its a sketch of the FreeBSD filesystem hierarchy. Randy -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
