Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > > This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root > > Filesystem): > > > > /usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other > > partitions or filesystems. > > > > Do we *really* want to head this way, ignoring bugs resulting from > > having /usr on a different partition such as > > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/#626007, which is what led to this? > > What's the benefit in having /usr or /opt as separate filesystems? A smaller / that is written to less often is less susceptible to errors. If you don't allocate enough space for / up front, you can move /usr and /opt to separate filesystems later. /opt can be completely unpredictable in space usage, due to vendor RPMs dumping stuff in /opt (see Dell's OMSA, that puts everything, including logs, under /opt). When disk was expensive, /usr was often the biggest consumer of space, so it would be shared across the network, but that's not a big issue anymore (and RPM doesn't really support shared /usr IIRC). I personally don't use a separate /usr on desktops, only on servers. On my servers, /usr is mounted read-only, as an extra protection against accidental (or even intentional) screw-ups. It also means that I don't waste I/O cycles on updating atimes on often-used binaries and libraries (which of course could also be done with noatime). I've seen some boot-from-flash setups with /usr on a hard drive. Basically, if Fedora is going to follow the FHS at all, bugs like 626007 should be fixed, not ignored because somebody doesn't like a separate /usr. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
