Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org> writes:
> Le samedi 17 décembre 2011 à 17:42 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
>> I do recommend a separate /usr to anyone. It's *not* safe to say that,
>> and I know many people that agree with me. To me, it has, and still is,
>> the best choice. You have no rights to arbitrary decide what should
>> be/was/will be the recommended configuration. Your choice is not more
>> valid than mine, and (computer) science isn't about majorities anyway.
>
> True. But the fact that you are in minority doesnât necessarily mean you
> are right, either.
>
>> Doing this has many advantage. Like, if your laptop has to unexpectedly
>> reboot (like when you inadvertently removed power cord when batteries
>> were not plugged, which happens often in real life), having separated
>> partitions usually makes the fsck faster.
>
> This is complete bullshit. With a journaled filesystem, the boot time
> will greatly increase with the number of filesystems to check. If no
> files were modified in /usr, they wonât be mentioned in the journal, and
> thatâs all. But having one journal to parse for all the system is
> definitely a measurable improvement.
Also / and /usr can be read-only and definetly should be on a systems
likely to have power outages like laptops. And with a read-only
partition you have neither fsck nor journal replay. But even mounting an
extra filesystem does cost time. If you want to save the last
millisecond boot time you want / and /usr as one read-only filesystem.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877h1qvyqv.fsf@frosties.localnet
