Fewer partitions are better (Re: Disk Layout/Partitioning Practices)

[leam]

> David;
> 
> I like the logic of why you would not put all data in /.  I'm about to
rebuild a system and wonder how you would recommend breaking / up?
> 
> Paul
> 
> Sorry about the top post ... Working with Outlook :(
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dballester at kernpharma.com [mailto:dballester at kernpharma.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:25 AM
> Hi:
>       I understand your point of view but I disagree with you. I'm
sysadmin and I NEED to have system data and user data in three or more
physical partitions ( at least /boot, / and /where_user-app_data_is ).
The reason is disponibility. I'm totaly agree with LVM and RAM reasons
that you exposed but having all data in / is dangerous.
>       Think about a damaged filesystem. In parititioned systems, if
the damaged filesystem is user data or /boot, I can unmount it easily,
repair it, and mount it again. If all system except /boot are in /, I
need to shutdown the machine, startup in 'recovery mode', repair and
start machine.
>       In this machine, for example we can have, internal dns, dhcp
server, cups ( printing ) and samba server. Using different partitions,
samba user data can be unmounted, and printig, dns and dhcp will not be
affected. With only / I can have all people in company stopped for a
while.
> <snip>

I prefer to break up user space for safety reasons. Some useres don't
know they have too much data on the machine until they choke it. If your
user stuff is on / then they can prevent normal system operations.

Normally I use /, /boot, /usr, /var, and /export; with the latter
getting home directories, shared filesystems, etc. /usr and /var/*could*
go on /, but I'm mostly used to keeping them seperate.

ciao!

leam

--