[PC-BSD Dev] Subject: Re: 9.0 Recommendation: partitioning
antik at pcbsd.org
Sat Sep 25 02:28:36 PDT 2010
2010/9/25 Roger Marquis <marquis at roble.com>:
>> 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 /...
> Not sure I understand the application but I would guess that less than
> 0.01% of PC-BSD installations would ever want to mount root read-only.
> We should be looking at the other 99.99% for defaults.
In case of power failure during some write operations your filesystem
would be inconsistent, that means after restart your filesystem(s)
would be READ-ONLY. Now imagine that you got single / partition and
can't start fsck placed in /stand, you have to start your system from
livecd or something and hope that your partition scheme is not ruined.
>> The purpose of multiple partition/mount is for flexibility.
> If it is then how do you explain the statistically significant
> correlation between intra-disk partitions and diskfull trouble tickets?
Disk full trouble from servers of workstations? With single /
partition your system would be unusable if it is full but with
multiple partitions you are able to use it and at least delete some
files. Also remember /usr partition where /usr/home directory with
all users files are stored. Now recall quota feature. You don't want
to set quota for your system processes, do you? Quota is set by
> Partitions may work well for inter-disk partitions (inter != intra) but
> if they made systems administration easier you'd think we would see them
> implemented on raid-based NAS and SAN fileservers. We don't because they
>> You are free to choose a partition scheme as you see fit.
> Nobody has implied otherwise. This true regardless of whether the
> default is single or multi-partition, single or multi-disk.
>> PCBSD used to have / only during install. People complained about that
> Got references? So far the only use-case I've read supporting default
> multi-partitioning is to accommodate a read-only root.
Ou yeah, I remember I complained :D
More information about the Dev