On Saturday 28 Sep 2013 01:39:57 David W Noon wrote: > On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:10:14 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote about Re: > > [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01: > > On 28/09/2013 00:57, Dale wrote: > > > Bruce Hill wrote: > > >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:33:02PM -0500, Dale wrote: > > >>> I'm hoping that since I use eudev, I don't have to worry about > > >>> this. If I do, this could get interesting, again. Dale > > >> > > >> Do you have /usr separate from / ? > > > > > > Yep. From my understanding tho, eudev is not supposed to be > > > affected by this problem tho. > > > > > > One reason for this being seperate, I have / and /boot on a regular > > > partition and everything else on LVM. Sometimes that /usr gets a > > > bit full. It's not so bad after I moved all the portage stuff out > > > and put it in /var. Now I have to watch /var too. lol > > > > Ask yourself this question: > > > > Why do you have /usr separate? > > > > No really, *why exactly*? > > You write as though you expected the question to be regarded as > rhetorical. > > I can't speak for Dale, but since I have much the same arrangement > (with /boot and / on physical partitions and everything else under LVM2 > control) I shall write from my perspective. > > The reason I have /usr separate is so that I can have it striped > without needing an initramfs. > > > One of the very first things you do with /usr at boot time is mount > > it, and from then on you use it exactly as if it were always on / > > anyway. > > No. The I/O characteristics of a striped /usr are rather different from > those of / on a simple partition. > > > I'll bet that since you moved all of portage out, your mount > > options and fs configs are the same between the two anyway. > > Again no. My portage volume has different mount options from /usr, as > it has nosuid and noexec in force. The portage volume is not striped > either, as it does not get as much I/O traffic as /usr.
Another reason that I have seen mentioned for running /usr separately is to mount it as read only for security reasons. It is a moot point how much this improves security, other than by yourself when you run 'rm -Rf /usr' one day by mistake. ;-) -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
