On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:54:49PM -0700, Bill Broadley wrote: > Rick Moen wrote: > > Quoting Bill Broadley (b...@cse.ucdavis.edu): > > > >> [...] I think it's a particularly bad idea to as Karsten's page says > >> make the basic recommendation for 6 partitions. If you read his page > >> it looks like he's pretty strong on /boot and swap partitions as well. > > ^^^^^ > > > > This is factually incorrect. As Karsten said, you seem to be imputing > > rather than reading.
What is the difference between "factually incorrect" and "incorrect"? Or, could it be "logically correct", which would mean a completely different thing? > > Sure, if you have a similar system like that in production, even then it seems > like a fair number of mistakes are made, like you are Karsten occasional > reinstalls and use the use. IMO as far as maintenance, robustness, and > sustainability are concerned that many (>= 6) are worse than few (<=4) > partitions are having to resort to ln -s is particularly evil, ruins > performance and makes it harder to maintain the machine. Why wouldn't you just use lvm to expand your partition and ext2resize to expand it? These tools can be run on a live system. I have done it a __few__ times. When a partition fills up, just add more space to it. > > >> The page also makes a few mentioned of ro, seems a bit silly. So if > >> only root can write to /usr, and root can remount rw what are you > >> protection from? > > > > In short: yourself. It's saved me from shooting myself in the foot > > quite a number of times. Once again, both Karsten and I already > > addressed this point, so your posing the question yet again seems to be > > solely polemics. I thought backups are for when you shoot yourself in the foot. -- Brian Lavender "LVM is king!" http://www.brie.com/brian/ _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
