🚀 go-pugleaf

The main difference from my point is that with one / filesystem, it *all*
needs to be fscked (man fsck) before the system will come up after an
abnormal shutdown. / only needs to be around 128mb. I go for something like
this for flexibility;

/            128mb    (/etc /dev et al)
swap        generally 512mb
/tmp        512mb
/usr        3000mb    (all programs and binaries and local stuff in
/usr/local)
/var        1000mb    (logging)
/home    1000mb    (home directories etc etc)
/u01       1500mb    (large applications eg Oracle)
/u02      the rest        (eg oracle data files, mysql datafiles)

this way, the root filesystem is easy to backup also.


Cheers,


Brian.


"Jacko" <jacko@fastnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3A47F3DB.B676BA34@fastnet.co.uk...
> Hi,
>
> I have built a new Debian2.2 for my personal website. I am the only
> local user and I can use the whole 9G hard disk. It will run DNS,
> Apache, qmail and mySQL only.
>
> When I install the Debian, I created the root filesystem only:
> /boot 100MB
> / 8GB
> Swap 128MB x 8 (cuz, I've got 4 x 128MB physical memory)
>
> After I read the "The Linux System Administrators' Guide", it suggest us
> to add the following filesystems /bin, /lib, /etc, /dev, /home etc.
>
> My question is...
>
> Why the book suggests different filesystems instead of one root
> filesystem"/"? (It looks easier to handle one root filesystem?!)
> Which method is works better?
>
> Thanks for helping me. Wish you a Merry Christmas.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Jack

In aus.computers.linux on Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:26:51 +0800
Jacko <jacko@fastnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Why the book suggests different filesystems instead of one root
>filesystem"/"? (It looks easier to handle one root filesystem?!)
>Which method is works better?

Long agp when disks were small, separate filessystems were all you
could do.

There is another good reason to have /home and maybe /usr/local
separate: upgrade time.

You can nuke the current installation without nuking your site
specific information, without nuking your homedir and the odds and
sods you have installed.

Another reason for having /var separate is so that logs can't grow so
hoge they jam your root filesystem.  Not a real problem on today's
huge disks, but a separate /var can just bugger itself *and* you might
catch the problem before it gets really big.

For a home system I usually have / and /home, for a work system I
usually have / /var and /data.  all the big stuff - websites and
backups and databases - lives on /data.  

Zebee

Well, I created a /home filesystem(partition).
All local stuff that is mine is under /box/(bin, src, db,...)

Now when I get a new release I can format  /   and install the
release without loosing anything in /home or /box.
This insures nothing from the previous release is polluting
the new release.


On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:26:51 +0800, Jacko <jacko@fastnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have built a new Debian2.2 for my personal website. I am the only
>local user and I can use the whole 9G hard disk. It will run DNS,
>Apache, qmail and mySQL only.
>
>When I install the Debian, I created the root filesystem only:
>/boot 100MB
>/ 8GB
>Swap 128MB x 8 (cuz, I've got 4 x 128MB physical memory)
>
>After I read the "The Linux System Administrators' Guide", it suggest us
>to add the following filesystems /bin, /lib, /etc, /dev, /home etc�
>
>My question is...
>
>Why the book suggests different filesystems instead of one root
>filesystem"/"? (It looks easier to handle one root filesystem?!)
>Which method is works better?

On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:26:51 +0800, Jacko <jacko@fastnet.co.uk> wrote:
|Hi,
|
|I have built a new Debian2.2 for my personal website. I am the only
|local user and I can use the whole 9G hard disk. It will run DNS,
|Apache, qmail and mySQL only.
|
|When I install the Debian, I created the root filesystem only:
|/boot 100MB
|/ 8GB
|Swap 128MB x 8 (cuz, I've got 4 x 128MB physical memory)
|
|After I read the "The Linux System Administrators' Guide", it suggest us
|to add the following filesystems /bin, /lib, /etc, /dev, /home etc�
|
|My question is...
|
|Why the book suggests different filesystems instead of one root
|filesystem"/"? (It looks easier to handle one root filesystem?!)
|Which method is works better?
|
|Thanks for helping me. Wish you a Merry Christmas.


And a Merry Xmas from me as well.


On the Filesystem note, it's all a trade off.

Many smaller file systems reduce the risk of a single corruption
destroying all your data, and help prevend a runaway log file (say)
from using up all your disk space.

For a single-user system, I'd recommend putting /home on it own
partition as a minimum (in addition to what you have above) and
/usr/local is a close second.

This is mainly to help during upgrades/reinstalls.

If you have:

/
/boot
/home
/usr/local

Then you can reformat / & /boot during an OS reinstall and not loose
your personal files and localy installed software. Note that I generally
do my OS "upgrades" by doing a clean install of the new version.


-- 
Reverend Paul Colquhoun,      postmaster@andor.dropbear.id.au
Universal Life Church    http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
            a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.

One other not-yet-mentioned---though related---benefit occurs if you
dilligently make back-ups.  Some tape systems, for instance, have tapes
which hold around 4gb.  It's easier to tape off (or restore, if the case
ever comes up) an entire partition than picking and chosing directories
(assuming not using some back-up utility) to pack your tapes.

A distinct disadvantage occurs if you go and make partitions which you later
decide are too small...  It's just not appealing to shuffle around partition
sizes once the system is established.

Asside from the other issues mentioned, it's a matter of taste.  If you've
already got something running on a personal system (as opposed to a
commercial server, for instance), it's probably not worth the effort to make
changes or to worry about the distinction.

-Joe



Jacko <jacko@fastnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3A47F3DB.B676BA34@fastnet.co.uk...
> Hi,
>
> I have built a new Debian2.2 for my personal website. I am the only
> local user and I can use the whole 9G hard disk. It will run DNS,
> Apache, qmail and mySQL only.
>
> When I install the Debian, I created the root filesystem only:
> /boot 100MB
> / 8GB
> Swap 128MB x 8 (cuz, I've got 4 x 128MB physical memory)
>
> After I read the "The Linux System Administrators' Guide", it suggest us
> to add the following filesystems /bin, /lib, /etc, /dev, /home etc.
>
> My question is...
>
> Why the book suggests different filesystems instead of one root
> filesystem"/"? (It looks easier to handle one root filesystem?!)
> Which method is works better?
>
> Thanks for helping me. Wish you a Merry Christmas.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Jack

Thank you for helping me.

Points:
1/ easier to upgrades/reinstalls.
2/ prevents large files full fill the whole hard disk.
3/ easier to recovery a filesystem.

In article <slrn94fuc2.bi8.zebee@zipperii.zip.com.au>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:
>In aus.computers.linux on Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:26:51 +0800
>Jacko <jacko@fastnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Why the book suggests different filesystems instead of one root
>>filesystem"/"? (It looks easier to handle one root filesystem?!)
>>Which method is works better?
>
>Long agp when disks were small, separate filessystems were all you
>could do.
>
>There is another good reason to have /home and maybe /usr/local
>separate: upgrade time.
>
>You can nuke the current installation without nuking your site
>specific information, without nuking your homedir and the odds and
>sods you have installed.
>
>Another reason for having /var separate is so that logs can't grow so
>hoge they jam your root filesystem.  Not a real problem on today's
>huge disks, but a separate /var can just bugger itself *and* you might
>catch the problem before it gets really big.

I came across another reason the other day.  A customer came to me
with a cracked mail server for me to recover.  Fortunately it had
been installed with:

/
/boot
/usr
/opt
/home
/var

as separate file systems.  I was thus able to talk him through a
re-installation where we formatted /, /boot, /usr and /opt but kept
/home and /var.  I then ran a script to check for iffy executables
on these partitions and he had his system back without losing either
user files or spooled mail.  (Of course, he hadn't done a backup for
nearly a year.)

John
-- 
John Winters.  Wallingford, Oxon, England.

The Linux Emporium - the source for Linux CDs in the UK
See http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/

On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:26:51 +0800, Jacko <jacko@fastnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have built a new Debian2.2 for my personal website. I am the only
>local user and I can use the whole 9G hard disk. It will run DNS,
>Apache, qmail and mySQL only.
>
>When I install the Debian, I created the root filesystem only:
>/boot 100MB
>/ 8GB
>Swap 128MB x 8 (cuz, I've got 4 x 128MB physical memory)
>
>After I read the "The Linux System Administrators' Guide", it suggest us
>to add the following filesystems /bin, /lib, /etc, /dev, /home etc�

I would keep /bin, /lib and /etc as part of the root filesystem, as 
they are all needed before any other filesystems are mounted. The same 
applies to others e.g. /dev.

>My question is...
>
>Why the book suggests different filesystems instead of one root
>filesystem"/"? (It looks easier to handle one root filesystem?!)
>Which method is works better?

It's all a matter of personal preference. I have
/dev/hda3       none          swap    sw                         0      0
/dev/hda5       /             ext2    defaults,errors=remount-ro 0      1
proc            /proc         proc    defaults                   0      0
none            /dev/pts      devpts  gid=5,mode=620,noauto      0      0
/dev/hda6       /var          ext2    defaults,grpquota          0      2
/dev/hda7       /home         ext2    defaults,usrquota,grpquota 0      2
/dev/hda8       /usr          ext2    defaults                   0      2
/dev/hda4       /var/tmp      ext2    defaults                   0      2
/dev/hda1       /mnt/windows  vfat    defaults,ro                0      0

I would also like to have a /tmp partition, but using something like 
Solaris tmpfs (uses VM) if such a beast has been written for Linux.
/usr/local and /var/cvs would also be possibilities in the future, if 
my CVS repositories get too big, or if I install a lot of software I 
compile myself (but this would only be for big stuff, like X, as I make 
Debian packages out of everything else, if one does not exist, so most 
stuff goes under /usr).

An advantage of partitions is splitting stuff up into functional units, 
and a big bonus is that you can specify different user and group quotas 
for each different partition. Basically, its up to you.

HTH and Happy Christmas!,
Roger

-- 
Roger Leigh ** Registration Number: 151826, http://counter.li.org **
Need Epson Stylus Utilities? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
For GPG Public Key: finger rl117@tower.york.ac.uk or see public keyservers.

In article <6oci4t4d3sk8cbb9l7g6mghu2sb7gi7o5e@4ax.com>,
Gary Beldon  <gary@despammed.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:26:51 +0800, Jacko wrote:
>
>> When I install the Debian, I created the root filesystem only:
>> /boot 100MB
>
>A bit much, 10M would be more than enough.

Agreed 100M is too much but 10M is also a bit small.  It's easy to use
more than 10M in a /boot partition if you compile your own kernels.
20M to 30M is a better bet.

John
-- 
John Winters.  Wallingford, Oxon, England.

The Linux Emporium - the source for Linux CDs in the UK
See http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/

In article <knqj4tgegnflumai291cl7n2q5t96ge36r@4ax.com>,
Gary Beldon  <gary@despammed.com> wrote:
>On 27 Dec 2000 08:52:08 -0000, John Winters wrote:
>
>> In article <6oci4t4d3sk8cbb9l7g6mghu2sb7gi7o5e@4ax.com>,
>> Gary Beldon  <gary@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>[/boot]
>> >A bit much, 10M would be more than enough.
>> 
>> Agreed 100M is too much but 10M is also a bit small.  It's easy to use
>> more than 10M in a /boot partition if you compile your own kernels.
>> 20M to 30M is a better bet.
>
>The /boot on this box contains 3 kernels all less than 600k.
>
>Ok, I guess it wouldn't hurt to go a bit higher, but I really can't see
>the average person filling up 10M.
>
>Am I missing something?

Map files can be 200k.  Initrds 400k.  My kernels go up to 1.7M (RH
seems to install an uncompressed version as well as a compressed one).

I recently had a clear out so my /boot partition now has only 12M used.

There's no point in making problems for yourself - 30M is nothing out of
a modern hard disc and 10M is just too tight unless you *know* you're
never going to do any kernel fiddling.

John
-- 
John Winters.  Wallingford, Oxon, England.

The Linux Emporium - the source for Linux CDs in the UK
See http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/