| gabriel rosenkoetter on Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:33:08 -0500 |
|
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 10:58:07PM -0500, Doug Crompton wrote: > Is there really any reason why one would not just make one big partition > period? I know the argument about /var - but with logging monitors it is > unlikely that would be a problem and I guess you could use quota's to > control other things. On a workstation, I've never seen much of a reason to have more than a single partition. Bill's /home caveat is valid, but how many users do you really have on a workstation? Can't you just back that up to another machine temporarily? (For that matter, who told you you needed to reformat your drive to upgrade? Sure, it cleans out cruft, but it's not actually all that necessary...) On a server, it's a drastically different situation. Things like /tmp and /var need to be watched carefully. Things like /home are likely to grow wildly overtime, so having a structure by which they can do so gracefully is nice. (Sun's automountd works quite well for this; last I heard, Linux's was just fine too.) It may make sense to put local software on a separate partition in a somewhat similar way. (There were some growing pains when cs.swarthmore.edu's /usr/local/depot ran out of space.) -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpkQIpoRt30W.pgp
|
|