On 02/18/12 20:22, Polytropon wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:05:49 -0600 (CST), Lars Eighner wrote:
It seems to me that partition and mount point are being confused to a
degree. There is no reason what is mounted at /usr/home cannot be a
separate partition as well as if it were mounted at root.
I thought of this fact as such an obvious thing that I
didn't bother even mentioning it. :-)
Of course, /usr/home can be a separate partition (even on
a separate disk), just like /usr/ports or /usr/obj or even
/usr/local could be. I've also seen systems having several
subtrees in /export, each one being on an individual partition,
some of them even on an own disk.
There are some
good reasons for the user directories (and perhaps some other data) to be on
a separate partition - mostly the reasons relate to ease of back up and
migration whether planned or emergency. Arguments about where to mount that
partition are not so practical, being more in the philosophic and historical
realm. Pick one, recognize not everyone will be on the same page and put
appropriate links in.
I'd still be interested in why this particular location has
been chosen. The typical access path for home directories
is /home (that's why the symlink), and as long as this
"top level entry" points to the proper data (no matter where
they are located), it should be fine.
There may have been a historic reason, but now it is philosophical - trying
to keep the system and userland distinction clear. But there are many flaws
in the attempted separation. /var for example is the default location for
many logs, both system and user, the spools (remember news?), and databases.
You really cannot drop /usr into a different system and have an operational
result.
Correct. Also see the difference in usage interpretation for
/tmp (not guaranteed to be present after reboot) and /var/tmp
(should be present in the same state after reboot).
The separation of concepts FreeBSD is famous for basically is
"the OS" (primarily /, /etc, /(s)bin, /usr/(s)bin) that provides
the minimal functionality to bring up the operating system even
in worst case, where only the root partition needs to be mounted,
which can be done in read-only mode, to finally reach the single-
user mode, and "3rd party applications" (everything in /usr/local).
However, both system and 3rd party programs access things in /var
or /tmp. Not having actual _user_ data in between can be a benefit
especially when something goes wrong.
(I put the home directories, the www directory, databases and spools all on
the same physical partition which I mount arbitrarily at /usr/local/data. It
isn't exactly plug-n-play, but in tests and emergencies is has proved
practical to drop the partition into several linices with a high level of
functionally - depending on application versioning being close to in sync.)
And I assume you still have /home pointing to the correct location
on that "new" path?
I think it all depends particularly on what you're using the system for,
really. Say you were going to run a print server, or a logging server,
or some other service, then you would arrange the system accordingly. I
notice that the general use case of www is already arranged to provide
this - the webroot is setup on the usr/local/www, but that could be a
mounted partition there too; it does protect the novice.
OTOH if you were setting up a print server, you would probably put a
spool partition specifically for that purpose where needed. That way if
you get a lot of large print jobs you're covered.
This general layout (the traditional one, to clarify: /, /var, /tmp,
/usr) offers the most protection and instruction to the novice user, and
usually works well in most general cases.
I have yet to try ZFS (lack of resources really), but when I can I will
setup a SAN and it will be interesting to see how this works and I
probably will use a single partition. But for the general filesystem I
doubt a single partition will cut it (I could be a stick in the mud
though :) ), and I highly recommend this path for the new user;
especially using a desktop.
BTW I was intending to put across the concept of /usr being user related
- anything a user may need or use; as opposed to / for the system
related stuff that keeps it running. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I had
thought... :)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
