Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:51:22 -0600 From: Douglas Carmichael <dcarmich@dcarmichael.net> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: "david.robison@fisglobal.com" <david.robison@fisglobal.com>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: One or Four? Message-ID: <3045DF0F-CCC0-4322-9A02-73C53A2865BC@dcarmichael.net> In-Reply-To: <20120217234623.cf7e169c.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <4F3ECF23.5000706@fisglobal.com> <20120217234623.cf7e169c.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I like this because it gives the user a choice, and it clearly lays out the c= hoices based on partition schemes instead of a less-specific 'machine use' c= hoice. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 17, 2012, at 4:46 PM, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote: > Four? There should be five! :-) >=20 > Read on to find out why. >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:05:23 -0800, Robison, Dave wrote: >> We'd like a show of hands to see if folks prefer the "old" style default=20= >> with 4 partitions and swap, or the newer iteration with 1 partition and=20= >> swap. >=20 > In my case, preference depends on use. When I'm unable to > predict how partition occupation will develop, going with > one / partition is a good approach. It can also be useful > for cases like home desktops. >=20 > Other cases, like dedicated servers or systems that use > more than one physical disk (e. g. one system disk, one > home disk) the approach of using more than one partition > is welcome. >=20 > I'd like to mention that using different partitions for > a logical separation of mechanisms and functionalities > can be a _big_ help in worst case (which you'll hopefully > never will encounter, but be prepared). For example, if > you have file system trouble with the /home partition, > you can bring the system up in a limited state (SUM), > make the partition "ro" and get the data. You can then > boot the system into the normal state (MUM) with using > the copy you made, leaving the original /home partition > unmounted and untouched. In case of data recovery and > forensic analysis this can be your chance to get your > data back. >=20 >=20 >=20 >> We realize that one can use bsdinstall to create as many partitions as=20= >> one wants. However, the new default is for one partition and swap. We=20 >> want to know if people would prefer the older style default with four=20 >> partitions and swap when selecting "Guided Partitioning" and "Use Entire=20= >> Disk". >=20 > Well, to be honest, I never liked the "old style" default > with /home being part of /usr. As I mentioned before, _my_ > default style for separated partitions include: >=20 > / > swap > /tmp > /var > /usr > /home >=20 > In special cases, add /opt or /scratch as separate partitions > with intendedly limited sizes. >=20 > You can see that all user data is kept independently from > the rest of the system. It can easily be switched over to > a separate "home disk" if needed. >=20 > What's the reason for this? Limited partitions are often > considered a problem, but they can be a system's life saver. > Just imagine you have all functional parts of the system in > one big / tree, let's also say /tmp is writable for users > (and it's not a memory file system); now a maliciously acting > user or program could fill /tmp with lots of data, occupying > the full disk. Soon, /var/log cannot be written anymore, and > also other processes that need to write something may get > into trouble. If /tmp is a separate partition, only /tmp can > get "out of disk space", with /var being fully untouched. >=20 > Also keep in mind that some tools like to operate on partition > level, such as dump (and restore). System tools like quota can > also be used on a partition level. As I mentioned before, being > able to mount a partition read-only can be helpful sometimes, > same goes for other mount options, such as noexec or noatime. > When dealing with this low level stuff is neccessary (e. g. on > embedded systems or systems that are low on resources where you > need to squeeze every bit of performance by fine tuning), having > individual partitions can be a big help. >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Let the majority decide which layout is preferred for the default. >=20 > Why not add a selection to the installer, something like > this: >=20 > Partition scheme > ---------------- >=20 > [ ] all in one + swap > Create one partition containing all subtrees > plus one swap partition. >=20 > [ ] separate partitioning + swap > Create /, /var, /tmp and /usr (including home) > partitions plus one swap partition. >=20 > [ ] user-defined > Make your own partitioning selection manually. >=20 > Of course, the default SIZES for second choice should be > reasonable. >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Polytropon > Magdeburg, Germany > Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 > Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.or= g" >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3045DF0F-CCC0-4322-9A02-73C53A2865BC>