On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:24:10AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > 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). So, LVM? > 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). mount --bind /usr /usr mount -o ro,remount /usr > I've seen some boot-from-flash setups with /usr on a hard drive. The rational thing there is for the flash to be /boot, not /. > 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. I don't think we gain anything from following the FHS on this point other than the ability to have /usr as a separate partition, and think that's a pretty circular argument. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
