Liam Proven <lproven@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 23 March 2014 21:56, lee <lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its >> own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t >> have. > > As I have commented elsewhere, I think this is a 1980s style of > thinking. Things have changed. Move on. Sorry, but they have; see the > links elsewhere. It doesn`t matter what you think. I have good reasons to do the partitioning I do. Besides, I would find it unreasonable to say that something which has been done in a particular way since and for a long time is suddenly something weird and exotic. >> RAID isn`t exotic, either. Disks do fail, the only question is when, >> and I neither want to lose data, nor the hassle. > > Sure, I use it on all my servers. > >> Installing on a laptop requires encrypted partitions. They can be >> stolen too easily. > > I have never ever used this and never expect or plan to. I suggest > that your blanket statement is too sweeping. You don`t need to plan or to expect to ever use something. Perhaps you have a better alternative to prevent data stored on laptops from getting into the wrong hands for instances when the laptops get stolen. Perhaps you always do messy installs without decent partitioning. Perhaps you don`t --- it doesn`t matter because you are not the only person for whom Fedoras installer would need to work. >>> I never separate out /tmp or /var or /usr/local - I only ever use / >>> and /home basically. >> >> I always use separate partitions. It has lots of advantages. > > As I said, I use / and /home and advise against combining them. And I advise against it. Do it when you like it and let others do what they like. I could very well claim that not using separate partitions is weird and exotic, just as you claim that using them is. > Personally I think that's enough. I am not disputing your reasons, but > AIUI, Fedora is trying out a move to flatten and simplify the > way-too-complex directory hierarchy. It's happened. The decision is > made. Deal with it, move on. There is nothing too complex about it. Should I find that I still can`t have /usr on its own partition next time I install Fedora, I`ll just install something else instead. >> /var can get full, and it`s written to, same goes for /tmp. > > As I said elsewhere: when the smallest new HD you can buy is half a > terabyte (and even SSDs start at half that) this really isn't a big > issue any more. So when a disk has a capacity of at least 500MB, it never can get full. Please prove this theory. >> How do you >> mount /usr read-only? > > I don't. Never have in 26y of Unix systems support. For rescue, now, I > boot off a LiveDVD or LiveUSB. I do. It`s a very simple and useful precaution and weird and exotic not to do it. >> Especially on a server, it`s a good idea to mount >> everything read-only that you can. When you have several disks, you can >> do your partitioning in such a way that you get better performance. > > [...] > So he came in and I set up a test and showed him that, to 2 decimal > places in a percentage-based benchmark score, i.e. well below > measurement error, there was absolutely *no* difference between the > speeds of different areas of the disk. I never actually tried to test it, so this may be the case or not. Putting things at different places of a disk it`s not the only way to make use of partitions to get better performance. > Now, it is not real. It is not there any more. Disks are a thousand > times bigger and faster now. This stuff does not matter any more and > hasn't since before Linux 2.0 was released. You are omitting that the amounts of data also have increased. >> Especially when you have a server, you may need a (pretty much) granted >> capacity on /var or /tmp to make sure it will continue to operate --- >> without separate partitions, your users may fill up the disks ... > > Users shouldn't be able to write stuff to / at all! Only to /home or > below, or dedicated data partitions. Where /usr or /var is should not > matter to them. I didn`t say that users should be able to write to /. When you don`t have a separate partition for /home, they don`t need to write to / to fill it. Log files and cached files go into /var and may fill it. >> Nowadays you may have SSDs which supposedly last longer when not written >> much to but mostly read from, so you might put the partitions that can >> be read-only on the SSDs and use magnetic disks for things like /var, >> /tmp, /home and swap. > > Machines come with dozens of gigs of RAM now. I'm not sure there's > much argument for swap at all, and personally, I use tmpfs for better > performance and a self-cleaning /tmp tree. It`s nice for you when you have one of those. They can still run out of memory, and swap can be used to slow them down so much that you may be able to do something before arbitrary processes are killed and the whole system may go down. >> Why wouldn`t you use different partitions? I can see it (and have done >> it) for when the available disk capacity is extremely limited, but >> otherwise it doesn`t make any sense and has nothing but disadvantages. > > Exactly. One splits stuff up when space is an issue. When it isn't, > one doesn't need to. You got that wrong, it`s the other way round. >> It`s merely a reasonable standard thing to use separate partitions and a >> requirement to use RAID, and encrypted partitions for laptops, not >> something in any way unusual. Of course I expect an installer to handle >> that as well as using a single, unencrypted partition on a single disk. > > > Actually, I agree, but there must be /some/ limits to the granularity! You can have reasonable ones, but technically they are probably not required. >> And it`s not too difficult. The installer doesn`t need to do the >> partitioning, the user does it. The installer only needs to give the >> user a good tool to do the partitioning the user wants and let them use >> it. Good tools to do partitioning are already available, and the >> installer doesn`t need to re-invent the wheel in that. > > I mostly agree, but bear in mind that the installer must cope with > both experts and novices. That's a tough call. That`s what the "just install" option I mentioned is for. > I'd say it's /too/ simplified at the moment, though, and I think you > might agree...? Getting the partitioning you want with Fedoras installer is anything but simple. I can only speak for the installers of F17 and F19, though. With the F19 one, it was impossible. >> Perhaps it even shouldn`t. Why force the user to learn how to use yet >> another partitioning tool they even rarely use unless they install >> Fedora all the time? Why not give them a choice, like either cfdisk or >> parted, then tell the installer what to do with each partition and let >> them switch between these until they are done --- or let the installer >> do whatever partitioning it wants, which means that all existing data on >> the disks will be deleted. > > Mostly, I would agree, actually. It may need a third option: Use available free space only and don`t delete anything. -- Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug) -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
