On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:52 AM, mark <m.roth2006@xxxxxxx> wrote: > hike wrote: > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Rubens Gomes <rubens_gomes@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > <snip> > > My question is. "Why do you make a separate mount point for /usr?". > > > > In the old days of UNIX/SunOS, the hard drives were small and we were > forced > > to have separate mount points for /, /var, /usr, /opt, /usr/openwin for > > SunOS, /home. This and the possibility of actually filling a filesystem > to > > 100% were the only real reasons for separating the filesystems that I was > > ever given. > <snip> > As I said in the article I published in SysAdmin last year (before it went > under) on upgrading Linux, you want that so that when you do an upgrade, > you > can rename it, then have a new partition for /usr, and let the install > format > that. That way, a) it's a "clean install", and b) you can fall back with a > few > renames in single user mode. > > mark > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > Mark, You just need space for another filesystem if you want to do what you indicate what the article says and do not, necessarily, need to separate your filesystems. (Why make things more difficult when they have gone to all the trouble to simplify our work lives. AND, that's why we do backups.) By the way, I enjoy how you are always quoting/referring to article. You must be quite proud of yourself. Funny though, you never tell which issue of Sysadmin your ariticle was in! LOL -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
