On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:57:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 08/31/2012 06:55 PM, Riku Voipio wrote: > > How is that different from having a botched / or /boot ? Why do you > > think having a separate /usr will make / less prone to HD crashes? > > You have / on RAID5 while /usr isn't? > > > > Typically, I have / on 2 small RAID1 partitions making the array on the > first > 2 HDD (1 or 2 gigs), and /usr on a LVM on a much, much larger RAID array > (I use mostly software RAID1 and RAID10, but in some cases, much bigger > hardware RAID5). So yes, that's my usual server setup. > > Also, / is a partition on which almost nothing is read or written, while > the others (eg: /usr, /var, /tmp, swap) are a lot more I/O intensive. > Which means that / is less prone to failure. Often, the 2nd RAID > array gets degraded, but / isn't. So it does make a lot of sense to > setup things this way, and yes, / is less prone to HD crashes this > way (I'm talking from 10 years of experience running about 100 > servers this way, so it's not just theory, it's very practical experience).
I'm struggling to understand this. In the situation you outline (/ ok, /usr, /var, /tmp, swap on another RAID which is hosed) -- whatever service the machine was offering is surely not being offered anymore (/ being too small to be useful for anything except a rescue environment). So / surviving whilst all your services/data are dead doesn't seem to be a big win to me at all. Am I missing a detail? -- 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/20120831150447.GD24379@debian
