Re: [gentoo-user] How many GB for / partition?

[Alexander Skwar <listen@alexander.skwar.name>]

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.

>> > and increases head
>> > movement.
>> >
>> > One big / (like 40 or 80GB) will be enough
>>
>> Yes, and it's obviously the worst solution. How do
>> you mount /tmp noexec? How do you mount /usr read-only?
> 
> why should you mount /usr readonly,

Because you normally don't need write access to
/usr, unless:

> if you do your emerging always everyday?

...unless, you're writing.

> Why should he make /tmp noexec,

Security precaution.

>> > 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.

Please also explain, how you seperate data areas (like
/var and /usr).

>> > 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.

>> > 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.

> makes boot much longer.

No, it doesn't. Not noticeably, at least.

> 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.

> You see, there are a lot of good reasons to keep the number of patitions low.

Actually, as *you* see, there aren't many reasons and no good
reasons to do what you say.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
It is common sense to take a method and try it.  If it fails,
admit it frankly and try another.  But above all, try something.
		-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list