[PC-BSD Dev] Subject: Re: 9.0 Recommendation: partitioning

QT rdirective at gmail.com
Fri Sep 24 13:28:40 PDT 2010


So, Roger.

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!

Best,
Quyen

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
>> swap.
>>
>
> 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.
>
> Roger
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.pcbsd.org
> http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pcbsd.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20100924/d894c87b/attachment.html>


More information about the Dev mailing list