Now, my Debian thinks I have SCSI for my old IDE/ATA drives after installing Kernel 2.6.32-4?
in [Setup]
|
Prev: Now, my Debian thinks I have SCSI for my old IDE/ATA drivesafter installing Kernel 2.6.32-4?
Next: 3D linux?
From: Anton Ertl on 6 May 2010 05:57 "Wolfgang.Draxinger" <Wolfgang.Draxinger(a)physik.uni-muenchen.de> writes: >Am Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:12:39 +0000 (UTC) >Alan Mackenzie <acm(a)muc.de>: > >> Er, one like me? The recommendation used to be (perhaps still is) >> setting up distinct partitions for things >> like /usr, /var, /home, /tmp, /boot, /swap, and >> even /var/spool/mail, /usr/local, ..... You don't have to be >> installing many installations before you hit that 15 partition >> limit. Indeed with a near-infinite number of partitions available >> (63, 64?) who worries too much about eeking out their partitions? > >This recommendation dates back to the days where hard disks were so >small, that -- in theory -- a process running havoc could render your >system unusable within minutes by filling up the disk. This never >happened to me though. I have seen it happen, even on systems with big disks. I'm not sure if the result is any nicer if the system is distributed on several partitions. Another reason given for this kind of division was security: You would have a read-only /usr, and supposedly that would be more secure. Nowadays with frequent updates that's probably not viable. The reason I have separate partitions for /home and /usr/local is that I want to share them among different systems. E.g., I switched from RedHat to Fedora Core 1 to Gentoo to Debian while keeping /home and /usr/local the same. And for each new system I used a new partition. In the end I used the partitions up to number 15 (some of the primary partition numbers were unused). - anton -- M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed anton(a)mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
From: Doug Freyburger on 6 May 2010 09:55
Anton Ertl wrote: > "Wolfgang.Draxinger" <Wolfgang.Draxinger(a)physik.uni-muenchen.de> writes: > >>This recommendation dates back to the days where hard disks were so >>small, that -- in theory -- a process running havoc could render your >>system unusable within minutes by filling up the disk. This never >>happened to me though. > > I have seen it happen, even on systems with big disks. I'm not sure > if the result is any nicer if the system is distributed on several > partitions. Same here. I get filling filesystem tickets regularly from one system or another, but I see a ton of systems not just a few. > Another reason given for this kind of division was security: You would > have a read-only /usr, and supposedly that would be more secure. > Nowadays with frequent updates that's probably not viable. I used to joke that /usr stands for "Unix System Reserved" and "Unix System Readonly". With the regular updates on Linux I can't treat it that way any more but I do on Solaris, HPUX and AIX. So on my Linux systems I tend to have boot disk slices for /boot, / and the first swap partition. Home directories tend to be in it for test/dev hosts but not production hosts. Too much risk of some user doing a recursive tar that fills the root filesystem and causes a transaction database to freeze. > The reason I have separate partitions for /home and /usr/local is that > I want to share them among different systems. E.g., I switched from > RedHat to Fedora Core 1 to Gentoo to Debian while keeping /home and > /usr/local the same. And for each new system I used a new partition. > In the end I used the partitions up to number 15 (some of the primary > partition numbers were unused). NFS and automounter make this very easy. |