On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:08:41AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On 2020-04-07 17:12, Andrew Grillet wrote:
> > For me, the "/var is full" problem can be adequately mitigated by mounting
> > a separate partition as /var/tmp.
>
> Does FFS2 have the same disklabel limit on partitions? I guess they are
> unrelated.
Unrelated.
>
> Sometimes users may decide which mount points to edit out during install and
> /var/tmp gives one more for them to understand if it's a problem moving to
> /var.
>
> Creating /var/tmp is actually a simpler consideration than removing an OS
> provided /var/tmp
>
> On web servers, I have /var/www and /var/www/bin as well as others on mount
> points so e.g. /var/www is noexec and optionally read-only. /var/www/tmp is
> sometimes mfs.
>
> That many mount points obviously doesn't fit so well generically but
> permissive
> permissions if more mount points were available, might work.
>
> I also wonder why /var/log is not on it's own partition by default. I almost
> always create it. I guess for smaller disks, more mount points is a pain?
>
>
> > More of an issue, although obviously not major - if there are a large
> > number of tmp directories, is making sure that they are all
> > routinely purged. Yes, I know this is down to careless admin practice, but
> > it happened to me earlier this year.
>
> A smaller partition would actually have less inodes by default ffs settings.
> Something to consider. No idea if/how ffs2 changes that?
With default parameter an FFS2 fuilesystem will have almost the same
number of inodes as an FFS1 filesystem. Note that disklabel instructs
newfs (via the fsize/bsize fields in the label) to use larger block
sizes for larger partitions, resulting in less inodes compared to
size. But for the same size class it's a linear relation.
-Otto
