On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Robert Davies wrote:
->One possible con I've spotted is that having / and /usr on different disks
->makes you more vulnerable to disk failure. On some UNIX systems /lib stuff
->is really in /usr/lib, and /usr contents are generally pretty useful, so it
->may make recovery harder. Linux distros are generally less vulnerable than
->this, and you can use recovery / rescue systems. There's not much to be
->gained from seperating / from /usr, performance wise. This kind of
->reasoning means for servers, putting /var & /tmp on a different disk, was
->more favoured than splitting / & /usr across 2 disks. /var and /tmp are
->very easy to recover from backup, and a side benefit is with /tmp & /var
->seperate, filling up / causes no serious problems to a running system.
I'm not 100% convinced here. You could well have a point about /usr/lib and
/usr/bin /usr/sbin, but beyond that it depends abit on how you use your system.
For me /usr/local/ and /usr/src are huge and growing all the time. Also the
random mix of make and make clean on a variety of different source trees, can't
be good fragmentation wise!
Rob
01010010 01101111 01100010 01100101 01110010 01110100
01001000 01100001 01110010 01110100
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk
http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu 22 Nov 2001 - 13:10:46 GMT