From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E16201381F3 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:31:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A6EE2E0E15; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:30:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com [209.85.212.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81555E0D6C for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id cb5so1753265wib.5 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:30:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=OJD/2aYgsfshYKP/9yubeTi5LSVS4XShA0a36V++PlU=; b=o0YhxcvcM7ccfz7ZiG3eBZMc7LtY3l7M+JiT6+8KdjqbcDbM0LOAwxrl8MgT/ixP2J zsb737jvPXoOaQzjB6MNuZk226BCHDeZWku8N3ebrvqepG6mRr/Ua/nP5+md8YuqSd4d CBt+iyrhiYJENlP42s6XzVupH6X9LUcW3fovdbhSL/wrAPnMTNYRn4VGGbaSLcDkerZ7 5aOqnfA6ZzKfbh7pOCj/58pUXFgVenSTUONsx4liuayU/M/zOeSmQJft2iy/q+0INkUk 2baJ0Qvf4yT0+HLyUF5xyvpuQVTqVohGD2BDyU3S5gRF0fZ8wD7fZeqbG47h6cuK5KDG b70A== X-Received: by 10.194.201.202 with SMTP id kc10mr9165113wjc.1.1380357056066; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell_xps.localnet (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa. [217.169.3.230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fz8sm4103886wic.0.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:30:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01 Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:30:23 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.10.7-gentoo; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <20130927222109.GD23408@server> <52461056.9020604@gmail.com> <20130928013957.3bd5ddea@karnak.local> In-Reply-To: <20130928013957.3bd5ddea@karnak.local> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1518609.igIvDKy2G4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201309280930.45751.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 2b3e7598-ac6a-4b6f-8082-b0280e715dce X-Archives-Hash: b74391cab2809b1324c7d48f4454de7c --nextPart1518609.igIvDKy2G4 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Saturday 28 Sep 2013 01:39:57 David W Noon wrote: > On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:10:14 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote about Re: >=20 > [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01: > > On 28/09/2013 00:57, Dale wrote: > > > Bruce Hill wrote: > > >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:33:02PM -0500, Dale wrote: > > >>> I'm hoping that since I use eudev, I don't have to worry about > > >>> this. If I do, this could get interesting, again. Dale > > >>=20 > > >> Do you have /usr separate from / ? > > >=20 > > > Yep. From my understanding tho, eudev is not supposed to be > > > affected by this problem tho. > > >=20 > > > One reason for this being seperate, I have / and /boot on a regular > > > partition and everything else on LVM. Sometimes that /usr gets a > > > bit full. It's not so bad after I moved all the portage stuff out > > > and put it in /var. Now I have to watch /var too. lol > >=20 > > Ask yourself this question: > >=20 > > Why do you have /usr separate? > >=20 > > No really, *why exactly*? >=20 > You write as though you expected the question to be regarded as > rhetorical. >=20 > I can't speak for Dale, but since I have much the same arrangement > (with /boot and / on physical partitions and everything else under LVM2 > control) I shall write from my perspective. >=20 > The reason I have /usr separate is so that I can have it striped > without needing an initramfs. >=20 > > One of the very first things you do with /usr at boot time is mount > > it, and from then on you use it exactly as if it were always on / > > anyway. >=20 > No. The I/O characteristics of a striped /usr are rather different from > those of / on a simple partition. >=20 > > I'll bet that since you moved all of portage out, your mount > > options and fs configs are the same between the two anyway. >=20 > Again no. My portage volume has different mount options from /usr, as > it has nosuid and noexec in force. The portage volume is not striped > either, as it does not get as much I/O traffic as /usr. Another reason that I have seen mentioned for running /usr separately is to= =20 mount it as read only for security reasons. It is a moot point how much th= is=20 improves security, other than by yourself when you run 'rm -Rf /usr' one da= y=20 by mistake. ;-) =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart1518609.igIvDKy2G4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJSRpO1AAoJELAdA+zwE4YeUOQIAMPR9pQ0C2ygLZLsSYSmb/3o Zn0rpphQlppEbDL8aNyi3D3cn9NKvfzzXI8JNin1FEeolsxcVK75Iax+hrBv/q3A WrCykaSF5+RiG4iRt8SNHESmV/vI9GnoGQ7mbTy7uh62Cx4/SBjweFl9qPZgwHHw yd/Qth7Y3UBBkV8wdPWzaP1UXHQozTtHvFD1eFt5Y8YQeBrOOEvxfZ6ePZciaiGw E1xYkw/L0LMpaiR4ETkWlc06ADX3rXgG73SopjKt79wWCnzBnsJnZb9Kf8eIj3HR uR1T0OdpnNneemrivBmo+iT0ly3JCxm1U9TyVIwV2L6FieJd7WcujEsfqR93aQs= =0/1z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1518609.igIvDKy2G4--