Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:51:13 +0100
From:      Ralf Mardorf <ralf-mardorf@riseup.net>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Cc:        Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>
Subject:   Re: Partitioning
Message-ID:  <20210213125113.3b3f1f8b@archlinux>
In-Reply-To: <20210213045614.71f2202b.freebsd@edvax.de>
References:  <CAAwGzWvpKnNga60ywPRj1J4rN_CJkcGwboTkcaTwoNrRC6HBhA@mail.gmail.com> <055e547a-c57a-048e-5458-4cf60b31ca7a@gmail.com> <20210213045614.71f2202b.freebsd@edvax.de>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
To me (no server, just a desktop PC) partitioning is most useful to keep
track of data locations. IMO it's better to have a separated partition
to e.g. store photos and to use paths only to sort photos on this
partition, not to distinguish mail, documents etc. from photos.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 04:56:14 +0100, Polytropon wrote:
>If you have things like /tmp, /var/log, /home and so rooted in
>the same partition, a "runaway process" could fill your whole
>disk just writing to /tmp, and you wouldn't know, because a log
>file can no longer be written. Also users might be affected and
>cannot save their work files as /home runs out of space (simply
>because / is full).

OTOH if you don't know how much space you need for binaries and
libraries and how much space you need for data in home in the future,
you are less flexible and might need to resize partitions, if they are
separated. By the all-in-one approach you don't have to do this.
Btw. making tmp a tmpfs has some pros and less cons ;).

>Another useful thing about partitioning is that you can backup
>and restore partition-wise.

That is useful, especially for huge amounts of data, that are better
stored on a separated partition, instead of home.

>You can also use different mount options (such as noatime where you
>don't need it, and even noexec when you want to prevent accidental
>executions).

For hysterical raisins I mount some audio real-time usage related
partitions with noatime, but I doubt that it make much sense nowadays.
However, I agree that separated partitions are useful for measures such
as mounting read only etc.. Related to performance I suspect that it
only makes a difference in some cases and if so, it's probably more
important what kind of hardware is used ... SMR, SSD etc.... what
kinds of files are used, mainly many short or a few large or whatsoever
files .... IOW related to performance the hardware and chosen file
system might be more important in the first place, than mount options
in the second place.

>if you need to recover something from /home, you can leave /usr, /tmp,
>and /var out of scope entirely, and those partitions won't be
>subject to recovery attempts - you can concentrate on /home.

Depends on the backup strategy, dump, dd vs tar.

>The initial question probably was UFS-centered, as with using
>ZFS, you can resize partitions any time you want, and it's a lot
>easier to manage them. Everything mentioned above can easily be
>done with ZFS, and more.

Reminds me of an Ubuntu user who wanted to shrink an partition on an
external USB SSD that was preformatted with exFAT. The user wanted to
use it to share data between Linux and Mac. So apart of being unable
to resize the partition, it also was missing "traditional Unix
permissions", which other than journaling could be preserved when
sharing data between those two operating systems. Thinking of managing
trim support, I don't know if using an external SSD via USB is wise at
all.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20210213125113.3b3f1f8b>