[PC-BSD Dev] Subject: Re: 9.0 Recommendation: partitioning
rdirective at gmail.com
Sun Sep 26 11:41:04 PDT 2010
Well said Kris, well said. If you run out of room, that is because you
didn't plan ahead. That has nothing to do with partitioning.
If you are an admin and this happens to you, tsk tsk tsk!!!
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Kris Moore <kris at pcbsd.org> wrote:
> "Roger Marquis" <marquis at roble.com> wrote:
> >Andrei Kolu wrote:
> >> 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.
> >Journalling is a better protection against boot-time fsck. At the very
> >least ufs with soft-updates should be the default filesystem.
> >But what Andrei is advocating here is a read-only root. That is not the
> >default now and, to the best of my knowledge nobody is seriously
> >advocating that as a PC-BSD default. To create a read-only root you'd
> >need to partition at least /tmp, /usr, and /var, and that would create
> >more issues than it would solve because:
> > * Every filesystem that has to be mounted at boot is a point-of-failure.
> > * Unless you also mounted /home you'd need to symlink /usr/home. This
> > adds another one or two points-of-failure as well as the path issues
> > that to accompany directory symlinks.
> > * An unmountable /usr is worse than an an un-fsck'ed root partition
> > for all but the most experienced end-users.
> > * Every intra-disk partition reduces the free space of all remaining
> > partitions, and increases the risk of diskfull partitions.
> >> 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.
> >Hasn't been my experience but then my systems have all used journalling
> >filesystems for several years now. Plus, anyone who knows how to login
> >to a diskfull system with multi-intra-disk partitions probably also knows
> >how to "mount -o rw /".
> >> 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
> >> partition.
> >If you need quotas you need partitions no question, however, few
> >end-users need quotas. If you install non-journalling filesystems you
> >may also benefit from partitions, at the expense of increasing the
> >chances you'll experience inconsistent non-root filesystems.
> >Bottom line, partitions within a disk create more points of failure than
> >they eliminate. This is statistics 101. IMO, the defaults should
> >reflect the fact that diskfull issues are more common than quotas and
> >fsck issues for the average user. The keywords here are "probability"
> >and "average user".
> >More importantly, and the bottom line for PC-BSD, end-users who
> >experience diskfull problems due to unnecessary partitioning or fsck
> >issues due to unjournalled filesystems are more likely to move to an OS
> >with more intelligent defaults.
> >Roger Marquis
> >Dev mailing list
> >Dev at lists.pcbsd.org
> If you want the best of both worlds, just switch to zfs. Using it here, and
> my zpool uses all the disk space, and creating mount points is a snap. I
> don't need to worry about running out of room on / or /usr, plus I can treat
> them as separate partitions. Or set compression and other options on the
> fly. :)
> Kris Moore
> PC-BSD / iXsystems
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.pcbsd.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dev