| 1 |
On 08/01/2011 10:45 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
> Samuli Suominen schrieb: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> that's my impression now too since nobody has managed to provide useful |
| 5 |
>> case for separate /usr, or they have been very vague like adding 1+1 on |
| 6 |
>> / and /usr filesystem sizes and counting the risk of corrupted |
| 7 |
>> filesystem from that (one word: backup) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Maybe I have to explain in more detail: |
| 10 |
> When is there a risk of data corruption involving /usr? For example, |
| 11 |
> when the filesystem which contains /usr is being written to while the |
| 12 |
> power fails or the kernel panics. But /usr is almost never written to, |
| 13 |
> it is the other directories like /home, /var or the upcoming /run. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Backup is orthogonal to this question. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
should think this inverse; make separate partitions for the data |
| 18 |
directories such as /home or /var |
| 19 |
have /usr on / |
| 20 |
so when / goes down, you still keep your data |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
right? |
Archives