Re: RHEL 5 : statically linked shell for root?
- From: mark <m.roth2006@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 07:52:47 -0500
hike wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Rubens Gomes <rubens_gomes@xxxxxxxxxxx><snip>
wrote:
My question is. "Why do you make a separate mount point for /usr?".<snip>
In the old days of UNIX/SunOS, the hard drives were small and we were forced
to have separate mount points for /, /var, /usr, /opt, /usr/openwin for
SunOS, /home. This and the possibility of actually filling a filesystem to
100% were the only real reasons for separating the filesystems that I was
ever given.
As I said in the article I published in SysAdmin last year (before it went
under) on upgrading Linux, you want that so that when you do an upgrade, you
can rename it, then have a new partition for /usr, and let the install format
that. That way, a) it's a "clean install", and b) you can fall back with a few
renames in single user mode.
mark
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- RHEL 5 : statically linked shell for root?
- From: Rubens Gomes
- Re: RHEL 5 : statically linked shell for root?
- From: hike
- RHEL 5 : statically linked shell for root?
- Prev by Date: Re: RHEL 5 : statically linked shell for root?
- Next by Date: Re: RHEL 5 : statically linked shell for root?
- Previous by thread: Re: RHEL 5 : statically linked shell for root?
- Next by thread: Re: RHEL 5 : statically linked shell for root?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|