1 |
On Dec 17, 2012 7:31 AM, "Kevin Chadwick" <ma1l1ists@××××××××.uk> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:32:24 +0200 |
4 |
> nunojsilva@×××××××.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > My thanks, too! There's nothing like reading on some actual experience |
7 |
> > with this. So this was once the reason to keep / separate. Not that |
8 |
> > important anymore (but this is still no excuse to force people to keep |
9 |
> > /usr in the same filesystem). |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Sorry but real world data is important and I am fully aware of the |
12 |
> academic theorist problems compared to practical experience but this |
13 |
> simply doesn't apply here. I didn't see any evidence or |
14 |
> argument that a larger root conducting millions more writes is as safe |
15 |
> as a smaller read only one perhaos not touched for months. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> The testing criteria were very generally put and just because an |
18 |
> earthquake hasn't hit 200 building in the last 50 years is no reason to |
19 |
> remove shock absorbers or other measures from sky scrapers. |
20 |
> |
21 |
|
22 |
This. |
23 |
|
24 |
My desire to separate / and /usr are more for minimizing possible problems |
25 |
with the filesystem. Yes, I can mount /usr ro, but sooner or later I have |
26 |
to mount it rw, and as Murphy's Law dictates, it's exactly at that moment |
27 |
something bad will happen. |
28 |
|
29 |
Rgds, |
30 |
-- |