Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:21:52 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathias_K=F6rber?= <mathias@koerber.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: More partitions on a single slice? Message-ID: <20001112172152.M802@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <NEBBLGLDKLMMGKEMEFMFEEBJCDAA.mathias@koerber.org>; from mathias@koerber.org on Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 02:14:51PM %2B0800 References: <20001112161406.J802@wantadilla.lemis.com> <NEBBLGLDKLMMGKEMEFMFEEBJCDAA.mathias@koerber.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, 12 November 2000 at 14:14:51 +0800, Mathias Körber wrote: >> On Sunday, 12 November 2000 at 12:54:50 +0800, Mathias Koerber wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am familiar with Linux, and just trying to install FreeBSD on my new >>> notebook. >> >> Is that the Vaio you were showing around on Friday evening? You could >> have asked me then :-) > > No, this is the DELL, and I decided to put up FreeBSD only > yesterday. Ah. >>> The FreeBSD Manual on one hand explains that it is better having >>> separate filesystems for /var, /tmp etc. >> >> And the "Complete FreeBSD" on the other hand recommends as few as >> possible. > > But why? I'm attaching a draft of the corresponding text from the coming fourth edition of "The Complete FreeBSD". This isn't set in stone, and detailed comments are welcome. >>> /tmp >> >> This can be mfs, which doesn't use a partition. > > I like /tmp which survives a reboot. Sometimes I need the data > there. This is one reason I dislike cleaning /tmp of new files at > startup. I only clean /tmp-files older than 14 days. If you want a /tmp which survives a reboot, why have separate /tmp and /var/tmp? You could make /tmp a symlink to /var/tmp. >>> /usr/local >> >> Is there a reason why this can't be a symlink to /home/local? > > I could do that, but I consider this ugly. /home is really for > users. I agree on my notebook this may not matter much, but for > other machines? The /home *hierarchy is* for users. It doesn't have to be the same as the /home file system. And yes, where you have a special need, this recommendation doesn't apply. My main concern is that people who don't do careful planning (and that's most of us, myself definitely included :-) end up with suboptimal layouts. /var is a particular problem: some people use less than 1 MB on /var, others use several GB. BTW, note that /usr is *not* for users. That shows fairly clearly how things have changed over the years. >>> and potentially more. >> >> I'd be interested in why. All this does is give you the opportunity >> to fill up one file system while having plenty of space in the >> others. Symlinks are a workaround when you get to this situation, but >> not a solution. In your particular case, I can see a case for: > > I like partitioning off this data to prevent eating others' (other > users', applications' etc) space. If I use symlinks this happens more > easily. That's what quotas are for. > Yes, it's a tradeoff between optimal use of available space and > some protection between different users, groups, applications etc. > > eg: On a mailserver /var/spool/mqueue is its own partition (or better > volume if a volume manager is available) to avoid filling up /var > with mails so that the log-messages in /var/log cannot even be > written out ! Agreed, servers are a special case (and yes, I've seen laptop based servers :-) In any such case, you need to consider exactly what you're doing, based on actual and expected load amongst other things. >>> And no, I do not want to scarifice another slice (BIOS partition) as >>> I need that for Linux. >> >> Ah. You can't have your cake and eat it. > > But in Linux I can: Up to 23 partitions in the BIOS extended partition? Well, I think of Linux as something like a hermit crab, living in other operating systems' partitions. With Vinum you could have several thousand. It's only limited by the length of the configuration information, and even that is a soft limit. >> I suppose one way round this "problem" would be to use vinum, which >> allows you to define an arbitrary number of volumes. But I still >> suspect that you're basing your requirements on incorrect assumptions. > > I just dislike that the O/S tells me how to partition it and has > low, hard limits. All OSs tell you how to partition. The limits are a reasonable compromise, and you can work around them if you want. I still don't think it's a good idea. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001112172152.M802>