bj has more than one directory tree in each of his new partitions. For example, he has both /usr and /home as directory trees on one partition, which he therefore should not call either /usr or /home. Yes, it would have been easier if he had made them into separate partitions; maybe he'll wind up doing that and therefore not need to use symbolic links. Steven Yellin On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Krzysztof Pior wrote: > Hello. > > I'm watching this thread and have one simple question. As I can see bj had a > system with some disks partitioned and mounted during installation. That > configuration worked fine. Then another disk(s) has been added, partitioned, > old ones has been repartitined or anything else (the point is that the > partition scheme has changed) and mounted under /mnt. Then symlinks has been > created in the filesystem to point to the mounted partitions. My question is > why? What kind of advantage is in creating symlinks in the filesystem > instead of mounting drives/partitions directly where they are supposed to > be? I also had a box with one hdd (60GB IDE one partitioned: 100MB for /boot > , 1GB for swap and the rest for /) and have FC3 installed on it. Then I have > bought SCSI host adapter and two disks (18 and 9 GB) so I rebooted my box > into the single user mode and then formated and mounted drives, copied > directories that were supposed to be replaced with new drives, edited fstab > to mount drives with a new order and got everything worked fine. My > filesystem looks like this (sda is 9GB and sdb is 18GB): > > /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext3 (rw) > /dev/sda3 on / type ext3 (rw) > /dev/sdb1 on /var type ext3 (rw) > /dev/hda3 on /home type ext3 (rw) > /dev/hdc on /media/cdrom type iso9660 (ro,nosuid,nodev) > > > Regards > > Krzysztof > > > -- > Shrike-list mailing list > Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list > -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
