Re: moving /home and /usr/local to partition?
From: Michael Heiming (michael+USENET_at_www.heiming.de)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:34:55 +0100
Bill Unruh <email@example.com> wrote:
> Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> writes:
> ]Leon. <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> ]> "Michael Heiming" <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote in message
> ]> > Now I disagree, for some desktop this might be fine, albeit I'd
> ]> > put at least /home on a on partition. A server is much better
> ] ^^^^^^^^^
> ]> > & easier maintainable using separate partitions.
> Are you babbling, because what you say does not make much sense.With jut
> one partition, why would you want to resize / or add storage. You have
You did read the word "server"? Meaning more then one disk
and the ability of adding/removing storage while running might
> it all. / is as large as it can be as is the storage.
> The key reason for partitions is for backup and reinstallation. When
> reinstalling you do NOT want to have to erase all fo the /home stuff or
> the /usr/local stuff that you installed from tarballs. You want to be
> able to erase the / partition to reinstall while keeping all of the user
> or root added stuff. Thus at least two partitions ( / and say /local
> which contains /local/home and has a pointer from /usr/local)
For some desktop it's usually fine to keep things simple, perhaps
mount /home from some NFS server if possible.
-- Michael Heiming Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for inconvenience, but I get tons of SPAM