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 3C6881381F3 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:56:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E59CC21C015; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:55:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from svr-us4.tirtonadi.com (svr-us4.tirtonadi.com [69.65.43.212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0251C21C015 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:54:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.220.53]:50164) by svr-us4.tirtonadi.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1TkTew-000L1r-0n for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:54:38 +0700 Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id hz1so3450002pad.40 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:54:36 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.68.227.41 with SMTP id rx9mr29704826pbc.121.1355723676133; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:54:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.17.199 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.17.199 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:54:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <50CB1942.3020900@gmail.com> <50CB4A3C.1030109@gmail.com> <50CB5406.7040404@gmail.com> <8738z7hgsa.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121216171043.71084070@khamul.example.com> <20121216184953.GD16560@server> <876241d9gn.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121217002613.294cff70@kc-sys.chadwicks.me.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:54:35 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet? From: Pandu Poluan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1ce7621287204d106040b X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - svr-us4.tirtonadi.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.gentoo.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - poluan.info X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: svr-us4.tirtonadi.com: authenticated_id: rileyer+pandu.poluan.info/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Archives-Salt: 110bd0b8-2116-4711-bad5-a4ecdf4a2bf9 X-Archives-Hash: d0ae1b5d52a3d8271aa00c6039f2583e --e89a8ff1ce7621287204d106040b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Dec 17, 2012 7:31 AM, "Kevin Chadwick" wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:32:24 +0200 > nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: > > > My thanks, too! There's nothing like reading on some actual experience > > with this. So this was once the reason to keep / separate. Not that > > important anymore (but this is still no excuse to force people to keep > > /usr in the same filesystem). > > Sorry but real world data is important and I am fully aware of the > academic theorist problems compared to practical experience but this > simply doesn't apply here. I didn't see any evidence or > argument that a larger root conducting millions more writes is as safe > as a smaller read only one perhaos not touched for months. > > The testing criteria were very generally put and just because an > earthquake hasn't hit 200 building in the last 50 years is no reason to > remove shock absorbers or other measures from sky scrapers. > This. My desire to separate / and /usr are more for minimizing possible problems with the filesystem. Yes, I can mount /usr ro, but sooner or later I have to mount it rw, and as Murphy's Law dictates, it's exactly at that moment something bad will happen. Rgds, -- --e89a8ff1ce7621287204d106040b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Dec 17, 2012 7:31 AM, "Kevin Chadwick" <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:32:24 +0200
> nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt (Nu= no J. Silva) wrote:
>
> > My thanks, too! There's nothing like reading on some actual e= xperience
> > with this. So this was once the reason to keep / separate. Not th= at
> > important anymore (but this is still no excuse to force people to= keep
> > /usr in the same filesystem).
>
> Sorry but real world data is important and I am fully aware of the
> academic theorist problems compared to practical experience but this > simply doesn't apply here. I didn't see any evidence or
> argument that a larger root conducting millions more writes is as safe=
> as a smaller read only one perhaos not touched for months.
>
> The testing criteria were very generally put and just because an
> earthquake hasn't hit 200 building in the last 50 years is no reas= on to
> remove shock absorbers or other measures from sky scrapers.
>

This.

My desire to separate / and /usr are more for minimizing possible proble= ms with the filesystem. Yes, I can mount /usr ro, but sooner or later I hav= e to mount it rw, and as Murphy's Law dictates, it's exactly at tha= t moment something bad will happen.

Rgds,
--

--e89a8ff1ce7621287204d106040b--