On Dec 17, 2012 7:31 AM, "Kevin Chadwick" <ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:32:24 +0200 > nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: > > > My thanks, too! There's nothing like reading on some actual experience > > with this. So this was once the reason to keep / separate. Not that > > important anymore (but this is still no excuse to force people to keep > > /usr in the same filesystem). > > Sorry but real world data is important and I am fully aware of the > academic theorist problems compared to practical experience but this > simply doesn't apply here. I didn't see any evidence or > argument that a larger root conducting millions more writes is as safe > as a smaller read only one perhaos not touched for months. > > The testing criteria were very generally put and just because an > earthquake hasn't hit 200 building in the last 50 years is no reason to > remove shock absorbers or other measures from sky scrapers. >
This. My desire to separate / and /usr are more for minimizing possible problems with the filesystem. Yes, I can mount /usr ro, but sooner or later I have to mount it rw, and as Murphy's Law dictates, it's exactly at that moment something bad will happen. Rgds, --
