Re: Current thoughts on system partitioning

From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen_at_tmr.com)
Date: 01/21/05

  • Next message: Bill Davidsen: "Re: Need to install Windows 2000 from scratch to HDDs with Debian/Linux" 
    Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:11:22 GMT

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote in message
    > news:qJVHd.8347$qG1.6537@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >>Morris Jones wrote:
    >>
    >>>Used to be the conventional wisdom for a *nix system was to have separate
    >>>disk partitions for areas like /boot, /var, /home, /usr.
    >>>
    >>>I can certainly see the wisdom of a separate partition for a usenet
    >>>volume,
    >>>if you're doing that.
    >>
    >>Definitely if you're doing it seriously.
    >>
    >>>My server hosts a handful of domains and email accounts for friends and
    >>>family. I've run into issues with the mounted /var partition filling up
    >>>with a runaway log file and causing other problems.
    >>
    >>You can make a good case for a /var/log filesystem. You can also make a
    >>case that you don't want to lose data if you have a problem, but if you
    >>run /var out of space you have a BIG problem. You should at the least make
    >>a consious choice about that one.
    >
    >
    > The reasoning is sound, but I massively disagree. Exploding /var/log becomes
    > far more likely when you partition it off, and makes your system vastly more
    > likely to fail core services. Unless you can be extremely generous with such
    > a partition, I'd advise you not to bother and simply use /var if you need to
    > keep that highly material separate.

    You ignore the consequences... If I run out of /var/log I stop logging.
    If I run out of /var/tmp a lot more things stop, and the system no
    longer provides service. The example of turning log level way up is
    silly, bad administration is bad administration, it's like saying "what
    happens if you type rm -rf /" or other undesirable things.
    >
    >
    >>>What's the current advice for partitioning a modern server? What's the
    >>>downside of using one large partition for the system?
    >>
    >>The downside is that if one thing runs away it can break the system very
    >>badly. I like a seriously used system to have /tmp by itself. Disk is
    >>cheap, time isn't. Just make everything larger than you think it needs to
    >>be by a good bit!
    >
    >
    > Again, the reasoning is sound, but when you start doing this sort of thing
    > you can actually destabilize your environment because software *will* insist
    > on dumping large things in /tmp. A lot of web browsers, for example, cache
    > their downloads in /tmp. RPM recompilation takes up big chunks of /usr/src,
    > except when it winds up in /var/tmp such as when compiling the kernel RPM,
    > etc., etc.

    Which is why you want a separate /tmp and if you build kernels a lot you
    might want a separate /usr/src or not. I build rather a lot and I have
    never run out of space on a small 10GB partition, if you're a vendor you
    have special needs.
    >
    >
    >>>One good thing I can think of is to have a small disk partition available
    >>>as an alternate boot for doing maintenance with the main partition
    >>>unmounted. That also might be practical with a live CD, saving the disk
    >>>space.
    >>
    >>Most distros have a live CD capability and will run with no disk at all
    >>available. Probably not worth it.
    >
    >
    > Agreed, as long as the live CD actually works with your hardware. Sometimes
    > you have to special load drivers, especially for new disk controllers. But
    > this is a good approach.

    Considering the probability that you will remember to keep the backup
    boot up-to-date, when you add hardware you have to have the drivers
    everywhere you need to boot. Most people run stock hardware and don't
    patch and build their kernel, so if it works once it probably will again ;-) 

    -- 
    -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
  • Next message: Bill Davidsen: "Re: Need to install Windows 2000 from scratch to HDDs with Debian/Linux"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Cant boot
      ... it seems that you are nto confident about your hardware. ... This is an issue, because if you expect the PC to boot properly, you ... partition when creating the new one. ... when I used Disk Manager to create the partiion and failed, ...
      (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
    • Re: Current thoughts on system partitioning
      ... > far more likely when you partition it off, and makes your system vastly more ... Which is why you want a separate /tmp and if you build kernels a lot you ... as long as the live CD actually works with your hardware. ... everywhere you need to boot. ...
      (comp.os.linux.misc)
    • Re: Dual Booting
      ... not a separate HD therefore the XP master boot record was changed to a W7 ... By formatting the XP partition from within W7 and then restarting your ... you won't be able to boot Windows 7. ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
    • Re: Filesystem layout with sperated /boot partition
      ... disk, first slice, first partition and FreeBSD on another partition? ... Would I need a boot floppy or perhaps its not possible at all? ... Basically you just put each OS on a separate ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: Dual Boot to same OS
      ... |> I have a dual boot configuration on a my partitioned hard drive. ... |> mine set up and have 2 completely separate OS's, ... |> I could use a 3rd partition for them to use as Shared Documents ... | installing all software twice, ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
    Loading