Re: bin, sbin, etc as seperate LVM volumes

Aragorn <stryder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 21:55, Floyd L. Davidson stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
On the other hand, */root* _can_ be placed on a different filesystem.

That is a *really bad* idea!

I don't see why it would be. The only thing that directory contains are
the personal /.bashrc,/ /.bash_logout/ and /.profile/ files of the root
user, and those can be easily copied to the directory */root* on the
root filesystem _before_ the separate */root* filesystem is mounted to
the mountpoint.

Why would you want two copies?

During normal operation, */root* would be the separate filesystem - and
the /bash/ history would be stored there - and when booting up in
single-user mode with only the root filesystem mounted, */root* would
be available still as a directory, eventually with the root user's own
shell configuration files.

Lets be silly...

The only real potential problem would be if one were to make */root* a
symbolic link to e.g. */home/root.* In the above scenario of a
single-user mode boot, */root* would be a broken link.

But even then still, I think the default /bash/ configuration in most
distros is to fall back to using the actual root directory as the root
user's home - just as in the old Unix tradition.

That shouldn't be a problem as long as the mountpoint exists, i.e. it
must _not_ be a symbolic link to e.g. */home/root.*

It *must* be on the root filesystem.

I don't see why it should be - see above section...

The one that doesn't make a lick of sense?

The whole point is to have it available if *anything* actually boots.
Very similar to the requirement for /bin and /sbin, for example.

No, there is nothing in */root* that requires being present at boot-up,
not even in single-user mode. */root* is the root user's home
directory. It should only contain data, and none of those should be
needed upon boot.

Maybe *you* like working in a bare environment, but I don't!

*/bin,* */sbin,* */etc* and */dev,* yes, they need to be on the root
filesystem, eventhough */dev* only needs to contain */dev/console* and
*/dev/null.* /udev/ users run their */dev* off of a /ramfs/ - or a
/devfs/ for /devfs/ users of course.

Why do you think the standard location for the root home directory is
in fact /root, and not /home/root?

....
Also, I would recommend that /usr/local be a separate filesystem.

I also have that one as a separate filesystem, but it's not really
recommended in most distributions unless the user is going to install
lots of packages from sources. Most distributions just put
everything under */usr* and */opt.* ;-)

That is exactly what should be *avoided*.

Keep in mind that "most distributions" are not necessarily set
for the *best* configuration, so much as one that will work at
the lowest common denominator. This discussion is about where
to go from that point if you want to have a *better* configuration.

But then by your standards, the OP would also need to start moving all
that stuff - which his distribution installed in */usr* - to
*/usr/local,* and that would be pointless and cumbersome.

Nothing that "his distribution" installs should be in /usr/local.

Unless the OP wants to build his entire distribution from scratch - as
in "LFS-style" - he'll probably end up with most software installed in
*/usr* and part of it in */opt.*

Even if he builds his entire distribution from scratch he
*should* end up with most software installed in /usr.

I get the impression that you don't understand what /usr/local
is for.

I already mentioned I use an older Mandrake on this machine - it will be
replaced with Gentoo as soon as my new hard disks are installed - and
this is what my */usr* and */usr/local* look like, sizewise...

/dev/sda3 xfs 7.1G 4.7G 2.4G 67% /usr
/dev/sda5 xfs 2.0G 25M 2.0G 2% /usr/local

Kind of a spacewaster, huh? ;-)

Some people don't do much local software development or
installation, others do a lot and might see exactly the opposite
numbers.

Make them manageable by someone who knows what they are doing.

That would most certainly _exclude_ Windows Admins, considering that
Microsoft has a tendency to rewrite the definitions of certain
concepts and globally acknowledged standards... ;-þ

Well, I wouldn't exclude someone knowing what they are doing
with Linux just because they do happen to also know Windows.

I was being sarcastic, based upon my experiences with the knowledge of
Windows sysadmins... ;-) Those guys typically know everything there is
to know about Windows, but they don't know anything whatsoever about
other operating systems and they're stuck to Microsoft logic.

I don't disagree with that evalution! :-)

The point was that knowing Windows is useless; somebody who knows
*Linux* is necessary.

Absolutely! ;-)

If he wants "everything on God's green earth", fooling around with
people who are guessing isn't productive, no matter how good they are
at something else.

Oh yeah... We've had an administrator like that once... He had one
common solution for every small little problem we ran into, whether it
was a stuck process or a failing daemon...:

shutdown -r now

Hmmm... we can guess where he learned that!

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: bin, sbin, etc as seperate LVM volumes
    ... but it doesn't *have* to be on the root filesystem. ... I think the default /bash/ configuration in most ... recommended in most distributions unless the user is going to install ... with Linux just because they do happen to also know Windows. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Making Linux Easy for Newbies
    ... Not even saying installing software on a Linux Distro is hard. ... I've never had to read installation instructions for Windows software. ... Never had to type a single command line command to install it. ... I've downloaded and installed many versions of several distributions. ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: Windowz convert wants to know why he should not be root???
    ... Throwing myt $.02 in here as a fellow Windows user... ... In Linux you can run as normal user yet still type in a root password any ... (We were switching from a self-managed install paradigm ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: Deploy Root CA to 98
    ... > We have a few 98 machines left, and after implementing our first ever Root ... > transparently on client Windows 98 computer in an Active Directory Networked ... You could also use a capicom script to install the root as a trusted ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.security)
  • Re: Windowz convert wants to know why he should not be root???
    ... >> logging in a root. ... > ..one of the things I hate about Windows is the all or nothing design. ... > In Linux you can run as normal user yet still type in a root password any ... (We were switching from a self-managed install paradigm ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)