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
