Okay, its clear now On 11/6/07, Steve Phillips <steve@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mad Unix wrote: > > what about /usr ? > > Did you not read what I said about it ? > > > /usr ------> SAN > > > > this is a _really bad_ idea. > > > > A lot of the time, you can get yourself in trouble if you are not > > exceptionally careful about what is called at boot, and these days a lot > > of stuff sits off /usr and you could accidentally isolate something that > > needs to be run to allow - say, the SAN to come online. > > > > Back in the day, people used to partition stuff lots simply because > > there was no such thing as a large hard drive (ok, this is not 100% > > correct, but pretty close) - a lot of people claimed it was for data > > retention incase of a system/drive crash, but seriously, how many people > > that claim this do you know that have HAD a headcrash on a drive and > > then tried to reconstruct data from the other segments of the drive - > > generally when a drive crashes it will take out pretty much all the of > > device rendering it ALL unusable. (and again, yes, at times you DO try > > to reconstruct the data but it is NOT a common event and you can cause > > more problems than you solve with this file system fragmentation that > > everyone seems dead keen on) > > > > Your best protection is NOT more partitions it is things like RAID (i'd > > mirror those two local disks) and good backups with a _tested_ restore > > process. > > Partitioning "because you can" is quite frankly, braindead. In the past > there were very valid reasons for mounting lots of partitions all over > the place, hard disk drives after all, were measured in 10's of _megs_ > in size, not in gigs. These days not so much. > > If someone can come up with a valid reason to partition to the nth > degree, then sure - but until then - why bother ? > > The biggest example I can give is not that relevant to many OS's due to > the modernisation of things, but the principle remains the same. > > <wee story> > In Solaris 7 there was no bash shell, so a classic thing to do was to > download and install bash from sunfreeware. This always installed to > /usr/local/bin - and was quite happily the default shell for a lot of users. > > Someday, Mr Admin decided that the root /sbin/sh shell was a little > plain, and with solaris, it will quite happily run with roots shell set > to /usr/bin/bash > > until of course you setup /usr as a separate partition and reboot and > then nothing mounts as we cannot find the initial shell to mount /usr > and the system becomes quite nastily broken and can take many hours to fix. > <end story> > > Now, if we take this principle further, while a base install today will > have no problem running with /usr as a separate partition, is there > anything to gain from this ? (keep in mind, we only ever do things for a > reason, not just 'coz that's the way its done') > > Arguments for no /usr > a) the system will run quite happily without a /usr on a seperate partition > > Arguments against a /usr partition > a) you can at times accidentally render the system unusable (you rely on > the fact that everything needed to start the system resides on / and > nothing in /usr) > > The 'no /usr partition' argument seems to win out in my mind. > > If you (or anyone else) has some form of logic as to why a /usr > partition is a good thing then I'm all ears. > > -- > Steve > () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail > /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > -- madunix -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
