[PC-BSD Dev] Subject: Re: 9.0 Recommendation: partitioning
rdirective at gmail.com
Fri Sep 24 13:28:40 PDT 2010
Suppose you have only a single partition / and want to mount it
read-only...how are you going to accommodate this ? Hm? I'd imagine you
have a terrific time since all inodes reference back to /. This will
include all sub-mount below /...
The purpose of multiple partition/mount is for flexibility.
You are free to choose a partition scheme as you see fit.
PCBSD used to have / only during install. People complained about that too!
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Roger Marquis <marquis at roble.com> wrote:
> Kris Moore wrote:
>> I'm inclined to agree with Andrei here. The standard way to do
>> auto-partitioning is what we've been doing, with /, /var, /usr, and
> This was the standard back when it was required by the imitations of
> single disks were not large enough to accommodate an entire distribution,
> but has not been standard, if by standard you mean used by a majority of
> Unix and Linux installations, since.
> Legacy or not I would hope that the goal of any partitioning scheme would
> be to accommodate the largest number of users. Partitioning /usr, without
> an explicit rational, clearly does not meet that test. That /usr is
> still partitioned in PC-BSD indicates that the current scheme is
> legacy-based as opposed to use-based.
> Partitioning /var is nearly as bad in my experience, for the reasons
> outlined previously.
> "/" and "/var" only take up around 2-6GB of space, leaving the
>> rest for your main operations in /usr. That seems like a pretty
>> reasonable amount to reserve for critical areas of the system.
> But then you often have to create partitions for /tmp and /var/tmp, and
> symlink them, and reduce log archiving, or archive to another partition.
> Dump, cdrecord, and rsync among others often need more than a few GB on
> /tmp or /var/tmp for one common use-case.
> I think what we should be looking at are use-cases. When someone pays me
> to reinstall a server that became problematic due to a small root, or
> var, or usr partition, or is experiencing performance issues due to root
> mounts, that indicates a serious problem. Cases where a single root
> partition creates diskfull issues are far less common, by one or two
> orders of magnitude.
> Question is what problems would have been avoided by partitioning /var on
> the same disk? Not in theory but in practice.
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.pcbsd.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dev