| 1 |
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:26:13 +0000 |
| 2 |
Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:32:24 +0200 |
| 5 |
> nunojsilva@×××××××.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > My thanks, too! There's nothing like reading on some actual |
| 8 |
> > experience with this. So this was once the reason to keep / |
| 9 |
> > separate. Not that important anymore (but this is still no excuse |
| 10 |
> > to force people to keep /usr in the same filesystem). |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Sorry but real world data is important and I am fully aware of the |
| 13 |
> academic theorist problems compared to practical experience but this |
| 14 |
> simply doesn't apply here. I didn't see any evidence or |
| 15 |
> argument that a larger root conducting millions more writes is as safe |
| 16 |
> as a smaller read only one perhaos not touched for months. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The testing criteria were very generally put and just because an |
| 19 |
> earthquake hasn't hit 200 building in the last 50 years is no reason |
| 20 |
> to remove shock absorbers or other measures from sky scrapers. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I thought I was clear in that - I was my survey of my machines for my |
| 24 |
purposes only, not a formal study in any way. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 28 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives