Hey Russell,
Friday, June 22, 2001, 9:17:12 AM, you wrote:
RC> On Friday 15 June 2001 16:13, Kevin J. Menard, Jr. wrote:
>> This system would be used mostly for web-hosting, so I was figuring
>> a large /home partition. Likewise only one or two kernels max, so I
>> figured a small /boot. And finally, and this is really where I'm
RC> Why do you need a separate partition for /boot? Why not just have it in
RC> the root fs?
Dunno. Figured for disk failure or something.
RC> Problems with booting from partitions >2G were solved ages ago, your root
RC> file system should fit into 8G (although even that limit doesn't apply if
RC> your BIOS is new enough).
Yeap, I don't have this limitation.
>> looking for help, it will be used as an IMAP/SMTP machine. So, should
>> I create a separate /var partition? I'm hesitant because I don't want
>> to a) not create a large enough partition, or b) create too large of
RC> I suggest having your email stored on the same file system as /home.
RC> Then you have all of your customer data on the same file system for easy
RC> backup. Also it saves juggling space.
Would a symlink from /var to /home/var be sufficient?
>> one and waste space. Do the performance gains outweigh this? (I'm not
>> terribly worried about the redundancy with the RAID 10 and all).
RC> What performance gains are you referring to?
Any that might occur from having separate partitions.
So, if you recommend /boot be with / and /var with /home, why not just have /
and everything in there? Is this reliable enough? Today's hard drives have
come a long way, and with a RAID 10, would I be safe in doing this? Or should I
just have a coulple gig / and the rest for /home?
Thanks.
--
Kevin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
