Re: Advantage of partitioning?
From: Nico Kadel-Garcia (nkadel_at_verizon.net)
Date: 07/26/03
- Next message: Nico Kadel-Garcia: "Re: Advantage of partitioning?"
- Previous message: OBones: "Alcatel USB DSL Modem with Static IP"
- In reply to: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Advantage of partitioning?"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Advantage of partitioning?"
- Reply: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Advantage of partitioning?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:04:06 GMT
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Apache gets put in all sorts of odd places, such as /home/httpd,
>
>
> You know, that's true. Let's settle on putting it in /usr. and putting
> the docroot in ~www, and the rest is config for you to do.
No, because you can't then use the distribution's package management
without symlinking.
>>/var/www, and /opt depending on your distribution, along with software
>
>
> Wherever it goes, you get to sit and watch. None of the common places
"Wherever the flying glass as you overflow a partition goes, you can
sweep it up".
No.
> is hazardous to life or health. Oh - are you saying that /opt would be
> on root if you hadn't symlinked it elsewhere or had a separate
> partition for it? I have a separate (very unfull) partition for such
Bingo. Symlinking it elsewhere is an emergency practice, and too damn
many installation tools do relative path tricks (config files in
/opt/dirnameme/etc looking up things in ../../etc/passwd and that sort
of silliness) to rely on symlinking the root of a hard-coded
installation directory.
> major packages. Office stuff is about all I put there. Nowadays much
> more is going in /usr where it used to go in /opt as the focus of
> packaging shifts more to the distros. A subdir of /usr/lib is
> a good alternative in general.
Well, that's nice. So now, because we've made /usr and /opt and /var
separate partitions for no overwhelming reason, we get to try to
outguess the package authors as to how large they will be.
No. It's a complete waste of time unless you have compelling performance
reasons to separate the partitions.
>>packages distributed as web services. mailman has also wondered from
>>/var to /usr in different distributions, and plenty of commercial
>
>
> It doesn't matter - much. /var always has plenty of space - enough to
> take a MB or two of confused looking files anyway.
You've never run mailman, have you? It's mailing list software, and can
easily take up Gigs at a slightly busy site that archives the email.
>>software packages use /opt. Postgresql, mysql, and other database
>>services also wander around. The usage of /usr vs. /usr/local for perl
>>and gcc depends on the distribution and whether you are using vendor
>
>
> None of that stuff matters. Wherever it goes, the data will go in /var
> and the rest is trivial (e.g. 0.5M for mysql). The /usr vs /usr/local
> is up to you if you are compiling, and you should always decide for
> /usr/local unless replacing a distro package with one of your own that
> you expect the distro to later catch up with.
Again, no. I just gave you a dozen examples of programs that put their
data in all sorts of weird places, including databases and web servers.
>>supplied distributions, building them locally, or what. *Logging* of
>>software results also depends wildly on particular configuration, with
>
>
> logging always goes in /var/log. That's what it's for.
Except, of course, when it doesn't. See Apache and mailman source code.
>>along with ()/bin, ()/lib, and ()/etc. Dont't get me *started* on trying
>>to build and install X windows from scratch in a spare locationtesting
>
>
> Why? I have done it. It needs at least 1GB of compile space! Maybe 3.
Which isn't available if you've already got your nominial 1.5 Gig of
/var filled with a mail spool, Apache, print services, and who knows
what else.
>>purposes. And the usage of /tmp, /var/tmp, and /usr/tmp is its own
>>special little bit of fun.
>
>
> The usage is fine and correct. I link them together since my opinion is
> that I have the right to kill tmp files whenever I want.
Which many folks do. Then some cretin writes one of those relatively
addressed "look in /tmp/../etc/hosts" sorts of programs and it goes to
hell in a handbasket.
Mind you, a lot of these practices are simply due to unfortunate
programming practices by the authors. But others have historically been
serious problems requiring repartitioning to address.
>>You, umm, don't get out much, do you?
>
>
> Only on thursday lunchtimes.
Heh. OK, fair enough, I shouldn't be so snide. But really, I've just run
too many times into machines I've partitioned per people's requests in
what seemed a sensible fashion, then altered a service or updated
packages on it that moved a lot of material elsewhere. It's just simpler
to not use additional partitions unless compelled to. These days, if you
*really* need another partition, it's often easier to just use another
disk as well and guarantee spare space.
- Next message: Nico Kadel-Garcia: "Re: Advantage of partitioning?"
- Previous message: OBones: "Alcatel USB DSL Modem with Static IP"
- In reply to: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Advantage of partitioning?"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Advantage of partitioning?"
- Reply: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Advantage of partitioning?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
