Kevin J. Menard, Jr. wrote:
> Hey Russell,
>
>
> Friday, June 22, 2001, 11:07:37 AM, you wrote:
>
> RC> What exactly will that save you from? If the root FS gets messed up then
> RC> having a separate /boot won't gain you much...
>
> I was thinking the other way around actually. If /boot were to get messed up,
> it wouldn't affect /.
>
> RC> I suggest creating /home/mail and linking /var/spool/mail to it. However
> RC> if you want decent performance for email you want to use Maildir. By
> RC> default maildir storage goes into user's home directories which solves
> RC> this issue.
>
> Well, I'll be using Cyrus IMAPd. Doesn't use Maildir, but does create separate
> folders per user. Thus, the spool is really not going to hold data much.
> However long it takes to rip data off incoming (using postfix) and send it out,
> or however long to hand it off to lmtpd and let cyrus deliver it.
>
> RC> If you have two partitions on the same physical media (in this case a
> RC> RAID-10) then expect to lose performance. If you make it all one large
> RC> partition then the file system drivers can optimise things more.
>
> Oh. Guess I didn't quite understand how disk I/O functioned. I figured
> something like /var, which will have a lot of synchronous writes, would get
> better performance outside of / or /home.
>
> RC> I recommend having a separate /home to limit the things that can go
> RC> wrong. I recommend leaving /var on the root file system unless you need
> RC> a lot of space in /var.
>
> Just from a performance point of view or for other reasons?
>
> RC> Also consider a separate file system for
> RC> /var/tmp and make /tmp a sym-linke to /var/tmp/tmp .
>
> Once again . . . just for stability? security?
>
>
>>>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?
>>>
>
> RC> RAID has no relevance to the issue of partitioning in this sense.
>
> Well, my point here was, with the RAID 10, I already have a pretty good amount
> of reliability, as if one drive fails, the system can still function. And with
> disks that are pretty reliable to begin with, I wasn't sure if the combination
> of all these would merit just one large / fs.
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
Hm, This is interesting, I have almost always used separate partitions,
such as /var, and it's saved my butt a couple times. If a log file
starts to run away, which I've had happen a twice, it can't overflow the
boundaries of the partition and crash the box, which it can if it's on
/. I _always_ use a seprarate /home, so I can keep data in case I have
to reinstall the OS, (successful intrustion attempt, etc.) and I've been
using a /boot for no good reason. :o) The other benefit could, I've
theorized, come from chrooting certain processes, If you leave them on a
separate partition, and somehow someone exploits the partition, you can
restore from your backup of the partition, without _too_ much difficulty.
Just my opinion, and I'd welcome comments on the topic.
~duane
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
