Re: bin, sbin, etc as seperate LVM volumes

On Wednesday 22 March 2006 05:41, Floyd L. Davidson stood up and spoke
the following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/

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?

One that's writable for normal operation while the rest of the root
filesystem is mounted read-only, and one for when the root filesystem
is the only one mounted, in which case it will be a maintenance job and
you will want it mounted read/write anyway. ;-)

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!

Then just copy your environment files over as well. It's not like there
will be too many of those anyway.

*/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?

So that the root user still has a home when the root filesystem is the
only one mounted. That's why I propose having a separate copy of
*/root* for during normal operation with a read-only root filesystem.

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.

In practice, this varies from distribution to distribution. However, if
the distribution installs nothing into */usr/local,* then it's
pointless making */usr/local* a separate filesystem _*unless*_ you
intend on installing software from sources for use on the local
machine.

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.

If the OP is a newbie - and most likely, he is - then he will probably
not foray into compiling, or into developing software.

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

Then your impression is wrong. ;-)

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.

Exactly. Hence my statement that making */usr/local* a separate
filesystem is only needed for those who wish to make use of it for
their software development.

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!

Well, he's free now to apply it wherever it was that he learned it. We
found him guilty of negligence, betrayal and sabotage, and we fired him
on the spot. ;-)

--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Disk Druid - Fedora flame #1
    ... What I do as root, ... Root's home directory should contain very little: ... part of a minimal boot environment. ... And the root filesystem should be as small as reasonably possible, ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Firefox 1.0.4 on SuSE Linux 9.3
    ... As root, cd to your user's home directory. ... Firefox 1.0.6 is out now so if you're just installing you may want ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: Filesystem concept
    ... > included in the same filesystem") means?Does a home directory and root ... ext3 is a filesystem *type*. ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: Read-only root (/) except /et
    ... in other words, again root is compromised. ... That means that in a standard config the root filesystem cannot be made ... backup, and fewer writes means less likelihood of corruption eg if power ... Note that all my live partitions are rsync'd with identical ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Read-only root (/) except /et
    ... in other words, again root is compromised. ... That means that in a standard config the root filesystem cannot be made ... backup, and fewer writes means less likelihood of corruption eg if power ... Note that all my live partitions are rsync'd with identical ...
    (Debian-User)