[gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Francisco Ares]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 246 bytes --]

Hi, All

Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during boot?

Or do the boot process need it to read/write to it?

I have found that mounting local file systems is one of the very first tasks
on "rc boot".

Thanks
Francisco

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 394 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Michael Mol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 348 bytes --]

Yes. Man fstab.
On Sep 11, 2011 7:19 PM, "Francisco Ares" <frares@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, All
>
> Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during boot?
>
> Or do the boot process need it to read/write to it?
>
> I have found that mounting local file systems is one of the very first
tasks
> on "rc boot".
>
> Thanks
> Francisco

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 549 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Francisco Ares]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 465 bytes --]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes. Man fstab.
> On Sep 11, 2011 7:19 PM, "Francisco Ares" <frares@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, All
> >
> > Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during boot?
> >
> > Or do the boot process need it to read/write to it?
> >
> > I have found that mounting local file systems is one of the very first
> tasks
> > on "rc boot".
> >
> > Thanks
> > Francisco
>


Thank you!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 921 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Alex Schuster]

Francisco Ares writes:

> Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during
> boot?

This is very common. The advantage is that a process filling up the /var
directory (which is bad) will not fill the root partition (which would be
worse).

But this might change - the upcoming change in udev might require either
an initramfs, or /usr being on the root partition. And I read that the
same might be true for /var.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Dale]

Francisco Ares wrote:
> Hi, All
>
> Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during boot?
>
> Or do the boot process need it to read/write to it?
>
> I have found that mounting local file systems is one of the very first 
> tasks on "rc boot".
>
> Thanks
> Francisco

I think I saw it mentioned on -dev that some time shortly /usr and /var 
will be needed on / or you will need the init* thingy to boot.  That's 
was my understanding of this mess.  So, if you are about to do a install 
that needs /var on its own partition, I would ask a dev to see how you 
should plan.  I could have misunderstood but I'm pretty sure it's 
coming.  It may also depend on what you are going to be running too.  I 
mention because no need doing it one way now and having to fix it 
later.  That sucks!

That said, I have /var on its own partition and mine boots fine, 
although I haven't rebooted in a week or so.  I don't think the change 
has happened yet but is coming.  I may have a different answer in a 
month or so.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Francisco Ares]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1610 bytes --]

Thank you!

And I have found it as a partitioning example on the docs, with "/var" on
its own partition (
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?full=1#book_part1_chap4
)

Francisco


On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Francisco Ares wrote:
>
>> Hi, All
>>
>> Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during boot?
>>
>> Or do the boot process need it to read/write to it?
>>
>> I have found that mounting local file systems is one of the very first
>> tasks on "rc boot".
>>
>> Thanks
>> Francisco
>>
>
> I think I saw it mentioned on -dev that some time shortly /usr and /var
> will be needed on / or you will need the init* thingy to boot.  That's was
> my understanding of this mess.  So, if you are about to do a install that
> needs /var on its own partition, I would ask a dev to see how you should
> plan.  I could have misunderstood but I'm pretty sure it's coming.  It may
> also depend on what you are going to be running too.  I mention because no
> need doing it one way now and having to fix it later.  That sucks!
>
> That said, I have /var on its own partition and mine boots fine, although I
> haven't rebooted in a week or so.  I don't think the change has happened yet
> but is coming.  I may have a different answer in a month or so.  ;-)
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>


-- 
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you
and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one
idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas." -
George Bernard Shaw

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Dale]

Francisco Ares wrote:
> Thank you!
>
> And I have found it as a partitioning example on the docs, with "/var" 
> on its own partition 
> (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?full=1#book_part1_chap4)
>
> Francisco
>
>

That could be changing tho.  It is documented that way now but the 
change is coming.  Whether it will affect your setup or not is not known 
at the moment.

Basically, the changes that are coming are not in the docs yet.  That is 
a work in progress.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Albert W. Hopkins]

On Sunday, September 11 at 18:54 (-0500), Dale said:

> I think I saw it mentioned on -dev that some time shortly /usr
> and /var 
> will be needed on / or you will need the init* thingy to boot.
> That's 
> was my understanding of this mess.  So, if you are about to do a
> install 
> that needs /var on its own partition, I would ask a dev to see how
> you 
> should plan.  I could have misunderstood but I'm pretty sure it's 
> coming.  It may also depend on what you are going to be running too.
> I 
> mention because no need doing it one way now and having to fix it 
> later.  That sucks!
> 
> That said, I have /var on its own partition and mine boots fine, 
> although I haven't rebooted in a week or so.  I don't think the
> change 
> has happened yet but is coming.  I may have a different answer in a 
> month or so.  ;-)
> 
> Dale
> 

Hmm, that doesn't smell right to me.  What I think you may have heard is
about /run.  systemd and some other things are preferring to
move /var/run to /run.  The reason being is that /var does not have to
be on the root fs.  sysdemd needs /run early (before mounting
filesystems) so the idea was to put /var/run on the rootfs, thus /run.

I don't think /usr should or ever will be required to be on the rootfs.
That's just dumb.  The reason we have /bin /sbin, etc. is so that /usr
need not be on the rootfs.  It doesn't make sense to change that well
known/established notion.

See also the FHS.

Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Dale]

Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 11 at 18:54 (-0500), Dale said:
>
>> I think I saw it mentioned on -dev that some time shortly /usr
>> and /var
>> will be needed on / or you will need the init* thingy to boot.
>> That's
>> was my understanding of this mess.  So, if you are about to do a
>> install
>> that needs /var on its own partition, I would ask a dev to see how
>> you
>> should plan.  I could have misunderstood but I'm pretty sure it's
>> coming.  It may also depend on what you are going to be running too.
>> I
>> mention because no need doing it one way now and having to fix it
>> later.  That sucks!
>>
>> That said, I have /var on its own partition and mine boots fine,
>> although I haven't rebooted in a week or so.  I don't think the
>> change
>> has happened yet but is coming.  I may have a different answer in a
>> month or so.  ;-)
>>
>> Dale
>>
> Hmm, that doesn't smell right to me.  What I think you may have heard is
> about /run.  systemd and some other things are preferring to
> move /var/run to /run.  The reason being is that /var does not have to
> be on the root fs.  sysdemd needs /run early (before mounting
> filesystems) so the idea was to put /var/run on the rootfs, thus /run.
>
> I don't think /usr should or ever will be required to be on the rootfs.
> That's just dumb.  The reason we have /bin /sbin, etc. is so that /usr
> need not be on the rootfs.  It doesn't make sense to change that well
> known/established notion.
>
> See also the FHS.
>

Have you been here the last week or so?  We have been discussing this 
change for that long.  I got the info from -dev.  Alex posted the same 
so I guess I was reading it right.  I agree it is dumb but that doesn't 
appear to sway the devs a bit.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 9/11/2011 8:28 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, September 11 at 18:54 (-0500), Dale said:
>
>> I think I saw it mentioned on -dev that some time shortly /usr
>> and /var
>> will be needed on / or you will need the init* thingy to boot.

> Hmm, that doesn't smell right to me.  What I think you may have heard is
> about /run.  systemd and some other things are preferring to
> move /var/run to /run.  The reason being is that /var does not have to
> be on the root fs.  sysdemd needs /run early (before mounting
> filesystems) so the idea was to put /var/run on the rootfs, thus /run.
>
> I don't think /usr should or ever will be required to be on the rootfs.
> That's just dumb.  The reason we have /bin /sbin, etc. is so that /usr
> need not be on the rootfs.  It doesn't make sense to change that well
> known/established notion.

Nope, Dale is exactly correct. If the upcoming changes to 
udev make it into Gentoo unaltered and unscathed, it will 
become necessary to have essentially your full system 
available very early in the boot process -- at least as 
early as when udev runs. This includes /usr, where I believe 
the udev scripts and libraries are being moved, and anything 
that any program in those scripts might access, which almost 
definitely includes /var.

Any setup where only / is mounted when udev's device 
population happens will become "unsupported" (if not 
"impossible").

The proposed alternative to a single huge partition is to 
use an initramfs that mounts your separate /usr (and /var) 
very early in the boot process.

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2228 bytes --]

On Monday 12 Sep 2011 13:11:51 Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 9/11/2011 8:28 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 11 at 18:54 (-0500), Dale said:
> >> I think I saw it mentioned on -dev that some time shortly /usr
> >> and /var
> >> will be needed on / or you will need the init* thingy to boot.
> > 
> > Hmm, that doesn't smell right to me.  What I think you may have heard is
> > about /run.  systemd and some other things are preferring to
> > move /var/run to /run.  The reason being is that /var does not have to
> > be on the root fs.  sysdemd needs /run early (before mounting
> > filesystems) so the idea was to put /var/run on the rootfs, thus /run.
> > 
> > I don't think /usr should or ever will be required to be on the rootfs.
> > That's just dumb.  The reason we have /bin /sbin, etc. is so that /usr
> > need not be on the rootfs.  It doesn't make sense to change that well
> > known/established notion.
> 
> Nope, Dale is exactly correct. If the upcoming changes to
> udev make it into Gentoo unaltered and unscathed, it will
> become necessary to have essentially your full system
> available very early in the boot process -- at least as
> early as when udev runs. This includes /usr, where I believe
> the udev scripts and libraries are being moved, and anything
> that any program in those scripts might access, which almost
> definitely includes /var.
> 
> Any setup where only / is mounted when udev's device
> population happens will become "unsupported" (if not
> "impossible").
> 
> The proposed alternative to a single huge partition is to
> use an initramfs that mounts your separate /usr (and /var)
> very early in the boot process.

No!  This is throwing a major spanner on all my boxen!  Arrrrgh!  :@

There's a lot of Gentoo users and I would imagine other Linux users who do not 
use initr* and still have a separate /var (because of logs, or mail, or news, 
or PORTAGE_TMPDIR, etc.).

I seriously hope that a Gentoo specific fix comes out soon and Fedora and 
their devs can carry on this way.  This M$Windows 'solution' looks more and 
more like major bad programming and is getting really really stupid!

</rant>
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Daniel Troeder]

On 09/12/2011 01:53 AM, Alex Schuster wrote:
> Francisco Ares writes:
>> Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during
>> boot?
> This is very common. The advantage is that a process filling up the /var
> directory (which is bad) will not fill the root partition (which would be
> worse).
Just wanted to throw in, that on servers I also create a separate
/var/log partition. Reasoning: If your logs fill up /var, than for ex.
mysql won't be able to write anymore. So to decouple systems and
problems even further I have /var and /var/log on separate partitions,
hoping for higher service availability.

Daniel

Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 03:23:45 PM Daniel Troeder wrote:
> On 09/12/2011 01:53 AM, Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Francisco Ares writes:
> >> Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during
> >> boot?
> > 
> > This is very common. The advantage is that a process filling up the /var
> > directory (which is bad) will not fill the root partition (which would
> > be
> > worse).
> 
> Just wanted to throw in, that on servers I also create a separate
> /var/log partition. Reasoning: If your logs fill up /var, than for ex.
> mysql won't be able to write anymore. So to decouple systems and
> problems even further I have /var and /var/log on separate partitions,
> hoping for higher service availability.

I actually have seperate partitions for the databases (Postgresql, OpenLdap, 
cyrus,...) to avoid any service interfering with any other.

But the more seperate partitions someone has, the more of a problem this 
change is going to be.
I have yet to find a filesystem that is optimal for all use-cases.

--
Joost