Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/15/2011 02:59 PM, Robert Nichols wrote: > > Not even 1% of the programs in /usr/bin are relevant to the boot process. > You need those, such libraries from /usr/lib (or /usr/lib64) that they need, > some bits from /usr/share (/usr/share/hwdata in particular), probably a few > more bits and pi

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/15/2011 12:21 PM, Gabriel Ramirez wrote: > On 04/15/2011 08:49 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: >> You want an ugly workaround? How about keeping your separate /usr, but >> keep a very stripped-down copy (just the stuff needed during boot) under >> the /usr directory on your root file system. That

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/15/2011 08:49 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: > On 04/15/2011 12:22 AM, Gabriel Ramirez wrote: >> ok, so I was wrong about the webpage and the situation, well thanks, for >> your explanation the only thing to do is install the F15, live with it >> or try to do a workaround myself (I don't care if i

Re: Separate /usr partition

Once upon a time, Robert Nichols said: > If you ever umount /usr0, though, there's no way to regain access > without rebooting. That's not true; if you bind mount / somewhere, so can see the /usr on the root filesystem (bind mounts don't follow filesystem mounts recursively; if you want that, you

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/15/2011 12:22 AM, Gabriel Ramirez wrote: > ok, so I was wrong about the webpage and the situation, well thanks, for > your explanation the only thing to do is install the F15, live with it > or try to do a workaround myself (I don't care if it's ugly) meanwhile > works in my use case. You wa

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/13/2011 12:53 PM, Mike McCarty wrote: > Gabriel Ramirez wrote: >> >> Well, the article points the problems are daemon's fault, but maybe the >> clean design of systemd is too clean > > That's not my understanding. The systemd is reporting a fact, that's > all. The cause of any boot problems i

Re: Separate /usr partition

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 20:45:05 +0100, Vaclav Mocek wrote: > On 04/14/2011 07:31 PM, JD wrote: > > Vaclav Mocek wrote: > >>> It reminds me, that few months back I observed that Fedora's binaries in > >>> /bin are much bigger that Slackware's binaries (tens of %), both +- the > >>> same version.

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/14/2011 07:40 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 04/14/2011 08:12 PM, Mike McCarty wrote: >> Vaclav Mocek wrote: >>> Well, ldd confirms that it is an urban legend. >> On my system ldd is in /usr/bin, not /bin > ldd an analysis tool (Print shared library dependencies). > It isn't needed for bootin

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/14/2011 07:31 PM, JD wrote: > Vaclav Mocek wrote: >>> It reminds me, that few months back I observed that Fedora's binaries in >>> /bin are much bigger that Slackware's binaries (tens of %), both +- the >>> same version. Now, I am wondering why, if it is dynamically linked. >>> >>> Vaclav M.

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/14/2011 08:12 PM, Mike McCarty wrote: > Vaclav Mocek wrote: >> Well, ldd confirms that it is an urban legend. > > On my system ldd is in /usr/bin, not /bin ldd an analysis tool (Print shared library dependencies). It isn't needed for booting. The actual dynamic linker is ld.so (located in /

Re: Separate /usr partition

Vaclav Mocek wrote: >> It reminds me, that few months back I observed that Fedora's binaries in >> /bin are much bigger that Slackware's binaries (tens of %), both +- the >> same version. Now, I am wondering why, if it is dynamically linked. >> >> Vaclav M. Could the difference be in the compiler v

Re: Separate /usr partition

Vaclav Mocek wrote: > Well, ldd confirms that it is an urban legend. On my system ldd is in /usr/bin, not /bin > > It reminds me, that few months back I observed that Fedora's binaries in > /bin are much bigger that Slackware's binaries (tens of %), both +- the > same version. Now, I am wonder

Re: Fwd: Separate /usr partition

-- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: it is ill-mannered to send me a private mail > and then post the reply in a public list.  Stop doing that > > Rahul > -- excuse me! :>) i had not noticed that you cc'ed me, and i th

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/14/2011 03:10 PM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote: > On 04/14/2011 01:58 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On 04/14/2011 02:01 PM, Vaclav Mocek wrote: >>> On 03/10/2011 05:08 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Kam Leo wrote: > It probably has less to do with the boot process and more with disto > up

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/14/2011 01:58 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 04/14/2011 02:01 PM, Vaclav Mocek wrote: >> On 03/10/2011 05:08 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: >>> Kam Leo wrote: It probably has less to do with the boot process and more with disto upgrading; i.e. less likely that user files get clobber

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/14/2011 01:58 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 04/14/2011 02:01 PM, Vaclav Mocek wrote: >> On 03/10/2011 05:08 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: >>> Kam Leo wrote: It probably has less to do with the boot process and more with disto upgrading; i.e. less likely that user files get clobber

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/14/2011 02:01 PM, Vaclav Mocek wrote: > On 03/10/2011 05:08 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: >> Kam Leo wrote: >>> It probably has less to do with the boot process and more with disto >>> upgrading; i.e. less likely that user files get clobbered if /usr is >>> separate. >> Nope. It has everythi

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 03/10/2011 05:08 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Kam Leo wrote: >> It probably has less to do with the boot process and more with disto >> upgrading; i.e. less likely that user files get clobbered if /usr is >> separate. > Nope. It has everything to do with booting. Some packages in /bin > depe

Re: Fwd: Separate /usr partition

On 04/14/2011 01:14 PM, charles zeitler wrote: > ok. so Mike M.'s concerns (as a potential splitter of /usr), > and mine (current and potential), and Robert's, are all > irrelevant, since they represent only _particular_ cases. No idea about your systems and how it is impacted. You will have to f

Fwd: Separate /usr partition

-- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. -- Forwarded message -- From: Rahul Sundaram Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:51 AM Subject: Re: Separate /usr partition To: charles zeitler On 04/14/2011 12:21 PM, charles zeitler wrote: > it's quite informative

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/14/2011 12:02 PM, charles zeitler wrote: "i'm not trying to argue, i'm trying to understand. i _had_ read the whole thread, _and_ the wiki article. i re-read the wiki article, and couldn't find the definition there." It is not a formal definition but the wiki page does describe the details

Re: Separate /usr partition

-- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 04/14/2011 01:02 AM, charles zeitler wrote: > > "please define 'general case'" > > Already defined in the wiki page I refererred to.   Do read the thread > completely before aski

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/14/2011 01:02 AM, charles zeitler wrote: "please define 'general case'" Already defined in the wiki page I refererred to. Do read the thread completely before asking questions. Rahul -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http

Re: Separate /usr partition

Aaron Konstam wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 13:18 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: >> Different file systems are optimized for different things. Some of >> them, >> for example, do better at holding large sparse files. So, "efficiency" >> has several possible interpretations. >> >> > That may be true bu

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/13/2011 02:47 PM, Aaron Konstam wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 17:00 -0400, Gene Poole wrote: >> If possible, I'd like to jump in on this conversation about a >> separate /usr partition. I work for a large corporation and we run >> multiple platforms (AIX, HP-UX, R

Re: Separate /usr partition

On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 17:00 -0400, Gene Poole wrote: > If possible, I'd like to jump in on this conversation about a > separate /usr partition. I work for a large corporation and we run > multiple platforms (AIX, HP-UX, RHEL, Solaris) and most, if not all, > of our servers not o

Re: Separate /usr partition

On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 13:18 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > Different file systems are optimized for different things. Some of > them, > for example, do better at holding large sparse files. So, "efficiency" > has several possible interpretations. > > That may be true but that has nothing to do with

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/13/2011 02:00 PM, Gene Poole wrote: > If possible, I'd like to jump in on this conversation about a separate > /usr partition. I work for a large corporation and we run multiple > platforms (AIX, HP-UX, RHEL, Solaris) and most, if not all, of our > servers not o

Re: Separate /usr partition

If possible, I'd like to jump in on this conversation about a separate /usr partition. I work for a large corporation and we run multiple platforms (AIX, HP-UX, RHEL, Solaris) and most, if not all, of our servers not only have separate partitions, but separate file systems. If you are

Re: Separate /usr partition

-- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 04/13/2011 11:36 PM, Mike McCarty wrote: >> >> It's true that my /machine/ is not relevant here. However, my /attitude/ >> is. I don't accept changes uncritically. > > Your attitude

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/13/2011 11:14 AM, Mike McCarty wrote: > I'm certain it isn't a comprehensive list. However, my question > remains: Isn't anyone at Red Hat "anyone"? Especially since > RHEL is a "for pay" product? I haven't looked into this, but I'd be willing to bet that the only way to get RedHat interest

Re: Separate /usr partition

Red Hat and from a personal viewpoint, I have no interest in a separate /usr partition. Fedora is a project that Red Hat participates in and where majority of packages are maintained by volunteers. It is not a commercial product. Fedora explicitly has a goal to stay close to upstream as much as

Re: Separate /usr partition

Aaron Konstam wrote: >> Some snippage when you reply, PLEASE! > I don't know what snippage means but efficiency to me means faster It means "please trim your quotes". > access to information on the drives. Only one of the things on your list > of "efficiencies" speaks to that kind of efficiency.

Re: Separate /usr partition

Rahul Sundaram wrote: > None of the issues mentioned in the wiki page I referred to is specific to > one distro or the other. This is all just upstream configuration. I am Yes. > pretty sure upstream will take patches if anyone is actually willing to do > the leg work instead of just talking ab

Re: Separate /usr partition

Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 04/12/2011 01:35 PM, Mike McCarty wrote: > > Of course, the typical response is argue that, this shouldn't be the > case but that is at this point just wishful thinking. > > Not on my machine. > > $ egrep 'usb-db|pci-db|FROM_DATABASE|/usr' /*/udev/rules.d/* > egrep:

Re: Separate /usr partition

Gabriel Ramirez wrote: [...] > > Well, the article points the problems are daemon's fault, but maybe the > clean design of systemd is too clean That's not my understanding. The systemd is reporting a fact, that's all. The cause of any boot problems is the way udev works, I think. I'm no udev e

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/13/2011 06:35 AM, Aaron Konstam wrote: > I don't know what snippage means "Snippage" refers to trimming out (or snipping) those parts of the message that aren't relevant to your reply. As an example, instead of quoting your entire post, including all of the quoted text, I only quoted the

Re: Separate /usr partition

On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 16:15 +0930, Tim wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 17:04 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote: > > Separating these file system trees is not more efficient unless the > > partitions are on separate hard drives. > > Well, that rather depends... For some people, *efficiency* can mean not

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/12/2011 04:50 AM, Mike McCarty wrote: > Gabriel Ramirez wrote: >> So the inconvenients of separate /usr will be apply to separate /var >> /var/log and /var/tmp ??? > > I suppose it depends upon what kinds of rules get written by the > distros and end users for udev. It seems unlikely that act

Re: Separate /usr partition

On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 17:04 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote: > Separating these file system trees is not more efficient unless the > partitions are on separate hard drives. Well, that rather depends... For some people, *efficiency* can mean not sitting through an entire huge drive do a fsck thanks to

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/12/2011 03:04 PM, Aaron Konstam wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 07:07 -0700, JD wrote: >> On 04/12/2011 03:38 AM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Rahul Sundaram>> > wrote: >>> >>> On 03/10/2011 10:02 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: >

Re: Separate /usr partition

On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 07:07 -0700, JD wrote: > On 04/12/2011 03:38 AM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Rahul Sundaram > > wrote: > > > > On 03/10/2011 10:02 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: > > > I just noticed that ever since Fedor

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/12/2011 03:38 AM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Rahul Sundaram > wrote: > > On 03/10/2011 10:02 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: > > I just noticed that ever since Fedora 11 the Installation Guide > > recommends against having

Re: Separate /usr partition

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > > > Only wishful if people are unwilling to reconsider past actions and are > unwilling > to consider the necessary changes. The cause appears lost in Fedora/RedHat > only > because 1 or 2 "large voices" seem to consider this a "religious

Re: Separate /usr partition

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 03/10/2011 10:02 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: > > I just noticed that ever since Fedora 11 the Installation Guide > > recommends against having a /usr partition separate from the root file > > system (though as recently as Fedora 12 the Exa

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/12/2011 01:35 PM, Mike McCarty wrote: Of course, the typical response is argue that, this shouldn't be the case but that is at this point just wishful thinking. Not on my machine. $ egrep 'usb-db|pci-db|FROM_DATABASE|/usr' /*/udev/rules.d/* egrep: /*/udev/rules.d/*: No such file or dire

Re: Separate /usr partition

Gabriel Ramirez wrote: > On 04/12/2011 03:05 AM, Mike McCarty wrote: >> Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> Some of the reasons are outlined in >>> >>> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken >> Thanks very much for that link. It's very informative, and reasonably >> well written,

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 04/12/2011 03:05 AM, Mike McCarty wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Some of the reasons are outlined in >> >> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > > Thanks very much for that link. It's very informative, and reasonably > well written, though with a few forgivable

Re: Separate /usr partition

Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Some of the reasons are outlined in > > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken Thanks very much for that link. It's very informative, and reasonably well written, though with a few forgivable grammatical errors. > Of course, the typical respon

Re: Separate /usr partition

On 03/10/2011 10:02 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: > I just noticed that ever since Fedora 11 the Installation Guide > recommends against having a /usr partition separate from the root file > system (though as recently as Fedora 12 the Example Usage still showed a > separate /usr). I've always used a s

Re: Separate /usr partition

Tim wrote: > Michael Cronenworth: >>> Nope. It has everything to do with booting. Some packages in /bin >>> depended on libs in /usr/lib{64} so calling the init script They should not. IMO, boot should depend only upon these directories being present: / /boot /bin

Re: Separate /usr partition

Michael Cronenworth: >> Nope. It has everything to do with booting. Some packages in /bin >> depended on libs in /usr/lib{64} so calling the init script >> before /usr is mounted would fail. There's a discussion about this >> in the devel list if you search the history for it. > Kam Leo: > Thanks

Re: Separate /usr partition

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:45 PM, fred smith wrote: > I've configured my eeepc (901) that way because the 4 gig ssd just > isn't big enough if /usr is put on it, along with / and /boot. Moving > /boot off doesn't save much space, either. > > so, for F14 I manually moved /usr after installation, an

Re: Separate /usr partition

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:04:13PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Kam Leo wrote: > > > > Thanks for setting me straight. Does that mean we're heading back toward > > separate partitions for everything? > > AFAIK /usr will not be defaulted as a separate partition any time soon. > Some package

Re: Separate /usr partition

Kam Leo wrote: > > Thanks for setting me straight. Does that mean we're heading back toward > separate partitions for everything? AFAIK /usr will not be defaulted as a separate partition any time soon. Some packagers see benefits to it and some do not. It is not an officially supported option.

Re: Separate /usr partition

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Kam Leo wrote: > > > > It probably has less to do with the boot process and more with disto > > upgrading; i.e. less likely that user files get clobbered if /usr is > > separate. > > Nope. It has everything to do with booting. Some pack

Re: Separate /usr partition

Kam Leo wrote: > > It probably has less to do with the boot process and more with disto > upgrading; i.e. less likely that user files get clobbered if /usr is > separate. Nope. It has everything to do with booting. Some packages in /bin depended on libs in /usr/lib{64} so calling the init script

Re: Separate /usr partition

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Robert Nichols wrote: > I just noticed that ever since Fedora 11 the Installation Guide > recommends against having a /usr partition separate from the root file > system (though as recently as Fedora 12 the Example Usage still showed a > separate /usr). I've always

Separate /usr partition

I just noticed that ever since Fedora 11 the Installation Guide recommends against having a /usr partition separate from the root file system (though as recently as Fedora 12 the Example Usage still showed a separate /usr). I've always used a separate /usr kept mounted read-only except when necess