From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jan 9 7: 8:10 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65FE737B401 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 07:08:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mired.org (dsl-64-192-6-133.telocity.com [64.192.6.133]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0EC2C43F5B for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 07:08:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mwm-dated-1042556877.0b18df@mired.org) Received: (qmail 32167 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2003 15:07:57 -0000 Received: from localhost.mired.org (HELO guru.mired.org) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.mired.org with SMTP; 9 Jan 2003 15:07:57 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15901.36940.465283.493694@guru.mired.org> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 09:07:56 -0600 To: Shaun Dwyer Cc: JacobRhoden , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: web write-up In-Reply-To: <3E1D0882.7050705@crystal.com.au> References: <98130130380.20030108095305@telus.net> <3E1CCBDD.9090209@crystal.com.au> <200301091255.39730.jrhoden@unimelb.edu.au> <15900.60172.518135.406735@guru.mired.org> <3E1D0882.7050705@crystal.com.au> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`; h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ From: Mike Meyer X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.68 (Shut Out) Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In <3E1D0882.7050705@crystal.com.au>, Shaun Dwyer typed: > Mike Meyer wrote: > > [SWAG follows] > I Disagree.. it will make a difference. If you partion /var near the > beginning of the disk (the fastest part - outer tracks) it will force > all the stuff in /var (being logs and stuff) to live at the faster area > of the disk. That could well be - after all, this is all just idle speculation. But then you're seeking all over the disk looking for the data that's being used by the processes that are writing to the log. Which is worse? > im sure there are several other reasons to make seperate > partitions. Off the top of my head: stop file systems from filling > up if you have a process dumping large ammounts of data some where Yup, but we're talking about two stable file systems - / and /usr - and the log file system /var. Letting / and /usr fill up is nearly harmless - you can lose the password file on / if someone tries to change it - so combining those three so that /var has the extra space means you are less likely to run out of space on it, and at minimal risk. If you have a system where passwords are changing frequently and there's a lot of activity on /var, the risk might be higher. > if one file system is corrupted, you dont lose > _everything_. Discounting the potential pefformance benefits, these > two reasons alone should be enough to create seperate file systems. When was the last time you saw a file system so corrupted it couldn't be recovered? Modern file systems - at least on the Eunices I work with - are sufficiently robust that the risk involved isn't worth the extra headaches created by having extra partitions. Generally, the valid reasons for splitting file systems are administrative or physical. Physical because you've got them on different spindles, and administrative because you're treating them differently: different backups, different mount permissions, different upgrade paths, different exports, different owners, or something along those lines. http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message