From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1F9oM5-0002AB-IP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:59:54 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1GIwBCx001844; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:58:11 GMT Received: from hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de (hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.2.20]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1GIl4i5013731 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:47:04 GMT Received: from hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 04B6D1F5D39 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:47:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from tu-clausthal.de (poseidon [139.174.2.21]) by hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A591F8ABE for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:46:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from energy.heim10.tu-clausthal.de ([139.174.241.94] verified) by tu-clausthal.de (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.6) with ESMTP id 11309435 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:46:37 +0100 From: "Hemmann, Volker Armin" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition? Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:46:36 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <7ae6f8f0602160419w67142523p296a88b3944ce180@mail.gmail.com> <200602161634.05506.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> <43F4A5F0.7030704@mid.message-center.info> In-Reply-To: <43F4A5F0.7030704@mid.message-center.info> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200602161946.36923.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> X-Virus-Scanned: by PureMessage V4.7 at tu-clausthal.de X-Archives-Salt: 618e083a-7ce1-4725-a4e3-c5c2101dc2c5 X-Archives-Hash: e04f85120bcfa8e6b27025d85b805bd2 On Thursday 16 February 2006 17:18, Alexander Skwar wrote: > Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: > > On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: > >> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: > >> > On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: > >> >> Izar Ilun wrote: > >> >> > I say that, It'll be just: > >> >> > - /boot > >> >> > - swap > >> >> > - /home > >> >> > - / (all the rest) > >> >> > >> >> That's not advisable. I'd strongly suggest to create > >> >> filesystems for /boot, swap, /home, /opt, /usr, /var > >> >> and / (of course). This way you're more flexible > >> >> and also a bit safer (not such a high risk of running > >> >> out of space on /). > >> > > >> > and he wastes a lot of space, > >> > >> No, he doesn't. Where does he waste space? > > > > because you shall not fill up any partition more than 85% or > > fragmentation will go up insanly and performance go down to the bottom. > > Yes, but we're no longer in the age, where 10GB hard > drives are high end. I do agree, that you might waste > a little bit of space. But that's it. And that's only > a theoretical value. Nothing to worry about in real > life. > > >> > makes boot a lot longer > >> > >> Not really. > > > > yes, really. > > jaja. > > > Why should he make /tmp noexec, > > Security precaution. if you have 10+ users with access to the box. But a workstation, without even sshd running, it is not needed. And hey, why should /tmp noexec save you from anything? If someone is able to break into your box, he can build his tools in /home or /var/tmp or somewhere else. No need for /tmp. > > >> > With that sizes, it is nearly impossible to fill / completly up. > >> > >> And it's impossible to have some flexibility. > > > > no, it is absolutly flexible > > Ah. Please explain how you mount /tmp noexec and /usr > readonly. I don't because it is wasted effort. If someone has the right to write to a rw /usr/ partition, he has the rights to remount a ro /usr as rw and can go on.. It just makes maintance harder. > > Please also explain, how you seperate data areas (like > /var and /usr). I have /var and /usr? Why shuld I seperate them any further? > > >> > To put everything on its own partition was good, when harddisks were > >> > 2gb-10gb big. > >> > >> And it's still good today. > > > > no it is not > > I see. Strange thing is, that about every server and workstation > I've seen more or less contradicts what you say. if you have 20+ users on each of them, and every single one is a little cracker in disguisse, it may make sense, but for a single user box? No. > > >> > But today it is just a waste of space and time. > >> > >> No, it's absolutely not. > > > > yes it is. It wastes space, > > Not really. Some. But not really. 15% of the space on each partition. That sums up. > > > makes boot much longer. > > No, it doesn't. Not noticeably, at least. oh really? Have a look at the forums 'my *fs takes this and that long to mount' If every partition takes a second, it will be very noticable. > > > More partitions = more > > haead movement = higher risk of damage. More partitions = more risk that > > one of the partitions dies = more risk of fatal data loss. > > There's always backup. > > > More partitions = less space available > > Not really. Some. But not really. > > If you're *SO* low on hard disk space, I'd advice to buy > more harddisks. more harddisks = higher chance that one of them dies. I had 4 simultaniously running harddisk once. I went down to one big one. Because every couple of month one disk died. It is simple math. The more disks, the higher the risk. > > Actually, as *you* see, there aren't many reasons and no good > reasons to do what you say. I haven't seen any good reason for a bazillion small partitions, that only increase your work and have to be monitored constantly (f* /var is full, f* /tmp is full f* I have to remount /usr). -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list