Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:38:06 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: "Craig W. Shaver" <craig@ProGroup.COM> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Partitioning suggestions? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.971117213115.23203D-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <34711F6E.BCCE8D9B@progroup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Craig W. Shaver wrote: > chuckr@glue.umd.edu wrote: > > > del ... > > > > A friend who programs a lot shocked me by saying that she regularly > > installs just one big partition, for /,/usr/ the whole works. I'd > > never done that myself, but I've been trying to come up with some solid > > reason why it's a bad idea. > > > I think the original reasoning among sysadmins was to break up the file > systems so that they could be backed up to tape easily. Tape size being > somewhat on the small side at one time. So 60mb to 150mb file systems > were the norm. I like to put / and /usr under 1 2g disk. That includes Huh? Backup tools have supported multiple tapes for a _long_ time. The real reason, is compartmentalizing functions. If one file system fills up, it doesn't bring down the entire system. For example, if '/' has no space, you won't even be able to change passwords. You want specific functions to be isolated to prevent such problems. This is only a real concern on server systems. On a desktop system, one big filesystem works ok. ... > The idea of using MFS mounted /tmp is appealing. How do you do that? > Is there some documentation on that? Yes, the manpages. The appeal factor depends on what you use /tmp for. I'll to like to quotas on /tmp to make sure users don't use it all it up. I also, use "-pipe" on gcc, so the compiler doesn't even use /tmp for anything. > Thanks, > > -- > Craig Shaver (craig@progroup.com) (415)390-0654 > Productivity Group POB 60458 Sunnyvale, CA 94088 > > Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.971117213115.23203D-100000>