On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 10:45:22PM -0000, Michael van Elst wrote: > > Then you have a running system that can e.g. talk to the network. > Better than fighting against WAPBL with a damaged journal that > you cannot skip. >
Well, rationally, there is no guarantee that won't happen with a separate /, Stuff Happens(tm). I may be extremely fortunate but I can really recall only one machine that would not boot due to a corrupted file system over my sys admin career. I have seen far more problems due to slicing up a disk into little bits. So many times trying to install something only to find that the target partition is too small but the other ones have plenty of spece, no time to take the whole machine out and futz about to back it up and repartition so the quick fix is sling a sym link in to point at some space and move on - results in a web of crazy sym links that cause a maintenance nightmare. > > Indeed, that's satisfying from a sys admin point of view, and no, > removing obstacles helps to get things repaired faster and with > less effort. > Yes it is nice if you can boot from the fs but booting from CD or the like could be necessary too - you need to plan for that. > I run thousands of such systems, but it's neither the whole world > nor a contradiction. Even such systems split their data between > different filesystems, for a reason. > Sure, having different file systems for a reason is the right thing to do. I do that, on my laptop my /home is separate so I can run cgd on it. I just don't think that getting a machine up in single user is anything great, if the machine is not doing what it was set up to do then it is not up. -- Brett Lymn -- Sent from my NetBSD device. "We are were wolves", "You mean werewolves?", "No we were wolves, now we are something else entirely", "Oh"
