Hey Russell,
Friday, June 22, 2001, 7:22:41 PM, you wrote: >> I was thinking the other way around actually. If /boot were to get >> messed up, it wouldn't affect /. I guess I'm off here. By getting messed up, I mean more by say a sudden jolt in the power supply (of course, I do have a line conditioning UPS) and mess up the partition table or something. RC> OK. So you want Cyrus storage on the file system used for user data. That's the idea. Let's see if I can get it to work :-P RC> IFF you have separate physical hardware for the different file systems RC> that will be true. However you only have one physical device (the RAID RC> device) so this will not be a benefit. Ahh, ok. Thanks for correcting me here. RC> Having /home and /tmp on separate devices to / gives some security RC> benefits by limiting the ability to produce hard links. Hard linking RC> /etc/passwd or /etc/shadow to a name under /tmp or the user's home RC> directory has been step 1 of a number of security attacks... I didn't realize hard links couldn't cross partition boundaries. I tend to just use symlinks anyway. RC> Having /tmp and /home on separate devices to the root FS limits the RC> ability of hostile users to perform such attacks. So I see. >> 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? RC> Security as described above and stability regarding issues of lack of RC> space and/or Inodes. Ok. RC> How will one partition or two partitions affect reliability? Disk RC> failures tend to be boolean things, if a disk starts dieing then all data RC> seems to rapidly disappear from it. So in you don't have RAID then RC> having separate partitions is unlikely to save you. Once again, I guess I was thinking messed up partition tables or something. Perhaps my logic was flawed. -- Kevin
