On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:05:19PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have /
and
/home encrypted and /usr not encrypted (for better performance of my laptop)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:50:43PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:40 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org said:
Putting my really old sysadmin hat on, one other reason for
having /tmp, /var and /usr as separate mount points
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Somewhere in the recesses of my memory I remember a UNIX where /bin, /lib,
and so on were just symlinks to /usr/bin, /usr/lib, and so on.
Tru64 (Yes, it's still supported!) does:
gho...@seraph ~ % uname -a
OSF1 seraph.tetraforge.com V5.1 2650 alpha
gho...@seraph ~ % ls
On 10/19/2010 04:13 PM, James Antill wrote:
Also, are we sure that people don't want to change any options other
than ro (the only thing you can tweak with the bind trick, AIUI)? I
thought someone mentioned noatime...
I don't really think noatime is as big of a consideration any more, now
On 19/10/10 14:11, Rawhide Report wrote:
anaconda-15.3-1.fc15
* Mon Oct 18 2010 Chris Lumensclum...@redhat.com - 15.3-1
- Don't recommend /usr as a mount point anymore (#643640). (clumens)
This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
Filesystem):
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
Filesystem):
/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
partitions or filesystems.
Do we *really* want to head this way,
2010/10/19 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/#626007
Comments are worth reading, I'm sure.
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 19/10/10 15:01, Chris Lumens wrote:
This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
Filesystem):
/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
partitions or filesystems.
Neat.
Do we *really* want to head this way, ignoring bugs
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org said:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
Filesystem):
/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:24:10AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
A smaller / that is written to less often is less susceptible to errors.
If you don't allocate enough space for / up front, you can move /usr and
/opt to separate filesystems later. /opt can be completely
unpredictable in space
On Tue, 19.10.10 14:43, Paul Howarth (p...@city-fan.org) wrote:
On 19/10/10 14:11, Rawhide Report wrote:
anaconda-15.3-1.fc15
* Mon Oct 18 2010 Chris Lumensclum...@redhat.com - 15.3-1
- Don't recommend /usr as a mount point anymore (#643640). (clumens)
This
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 14:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
Filesystem):
/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
On 10/19/2010 04:37 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Note that many other distributions gave up on seperate /usr already (for
example, Gentoo do this, and even refers to Fedora that it wasn't
supported here, which is technically true, but so far not officially).
Where did you get that idea? From
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:38:13AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
/opt is a location filled with vendor detritus on a lot of systems -
sometimes managed by rpms, sometimes not. It's not uncommon to have /opt
automounted via nfs. Additionally, on some workstastion systems /opt is
a separate drive
On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 15:56:54 Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
Filesystem):
/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on
other
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have /
and
/home encrypted and /usr not encrypted (for better performance of my laptop)
I'm kind of curious about this. What's on / that benefits from being
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have /
and
/home encrypted and /usr not encrypted (for better performance of my laptop)
I'm
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:03:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
/usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for
example) or mounted readonly to prevent unnecessary writes to the
system.
That doesn't require
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:07:24AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have
/ and
/home encrypted and
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:07:24AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:03:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
/usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for
example) or mounted readonly to prevent
On 10/19/2010 11:15 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:03:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
/usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:15:02AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
It doesn't. You can make it a read-only bind mount.
If the files are still read-write at another location then something
iterating over disks/locations can still find it.
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 11:18 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
So it seems like you need to explain why you think /usr should NOT be on
a separate partition.
Because it adds additional complexity for no obvious gain.
that's not plausible enough, imo. There is clear gain to enough users to
On 10/19/2010 11:22 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 11:18 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
So it seems like you need to explain why you think /usr should NOT be on
a separate partition.
Because it adds additional complexity for no obvious gain.
that's not plausible enough, imo. There
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:22 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Hmm, So when this was broken a lot of bugs were triggered?
Sure seems like if a lot of bugs are being triggered then it is NOT a
niche usecase.
You can't have it both ways.
Very few people do it. When they do, lots of
On Tue, 19.10.10 16:51, Stanislav Ochotnicky (sochotni...@redhat.com) wrote:
On 10/19/2010 04:37 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Note that many other distributions gave up on seperate /usr already (for
example, Gentoo do this, and even refers to Fedora that it wasn't
supported here, which is
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org said:
Because it takes more engineering effort to keep it as a separate
partition, as evidenced by the number of bugs that keep appearing that
are only triggered by this niche usecase.
And how many of those bugs are exclusively a
On 10/19/2010 11:25 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:22 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Hmm, So when this was broken a lot of bugs were triggered?
Sure seems like if a lot of bugs are being triggered then it is NOT a
niche usecase.
You can't have it both ways.
Very few
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
On 10/19/2010 11:25 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:22 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Hmm, So when this was broken a lot of bugs were triggered?
Sure seems like if a lot of bugs are being triggered then it is NOT a
niche
On 10/19/2010 01:01 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:43:49AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
This is out of 1,702,459 submissions of profiles that included filesystem
data. So about 3% of users have something mounted in /usr and about 2.2%
have /usr mounted directly.
Given
On 10/19/2010 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org said:
Because it takes more engineering effort to keep it as a separate
partition, as evidenced by the number of bugs that keep appearing that
are only triggered by this niche usecase.
And how
Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 14:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
Filesystem):
/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 11:12 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
Well, I don't think people have suggested removing /var as a separate
mountpoint. The stuff in /etc is a much more interesting case. Do you
have some examples?
Password/Shadow files? SSL Certs/SSL Keys for various kinds of daemons
Once upon a time, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com said:
On 10/19/2010 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
And how many of those bugs are exclusively a /usr-is-separate problem
vs. how many of them are didn't-anticipate-alternate-partitioning
problems?
If I understand your distinction correctly,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/19/2010 11:25 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
If separate /usr isn't considered a valid configuration, why do we have
separate /bin, /sbin, /lib{,64}?
Today it isn't necessarily valid. Things do progress, and the reasons
for separate /usr back in the
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Well, I don't think people have suggested removing /var as a separate
mountpoint. The stuff in /etc is a much more interesting case. Do you
have some examples?
So first off, I personally don't care if /usr is allowed to be separate
-Original Message-
From: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf
Of Lennart Poettering
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:38 AM
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
Subject: Re: rawhide report: 20101019 changes
I
Once upon a time, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org said:
Putting my really old sysadmin hat on, one other reason for
having /tmp, /var and /usr as separate mount points was so that you
could allocate different disk space to each (and they couldn't break
each other) ... do we have other
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:40 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org said:
Putting my really old sysadmin hat on, one other reason for
having /tmp, /var and /usr as separate mount points was so that you
could allocate different disk space to each
Peter Jones (pjo...@redhat.com) said:
Because we haven't decided to merge those together. That's really the only
reason - there's no over-arching technical reason they need to be separate.
It's entirely a historical consideration.
Somewhere in the recesses of my memory I remember a UNIX where
Cleaver, Japheth (jclea...@soe.sony.com) said:
A ton of this work was already done in initscripts through the use of the
/etc/sysconfig/readonly-root hooks. Isn't that already working well enough
now for that purpose, future systemd changes aside?
Given that it involves bind-mounting
Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com said:
Peter Jones (pjo...@redhat.com) said:
Because we haven't decided to merge those together. That's really the only
reason - there's no over-arching technical reason they need to be separate.
It's entirely a historical consideration.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 19:58, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Jones (pjo...@redhat.com) said:
Because we haven't decided to merge those together. That's really the only
reason - there's no over-arching technical reason they need to be separate.
It's entirely a historical
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Cleaver, Japheth wrote:
A ton of this work was already done in initscripts through the use of the
/etc/sysconfig/readonly-root hooks. Isn't that already working well enough
now for that purpose, future systemd changes aside?
Not sure if it's directly related to
45 matches
Mail list logo
