| 1 |
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:53:35 -0800 |
| 2 |
Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I guess the other question that's lurking here for me is why do you |
| 5 |
> have /usr on a separate partition? What's the usage model that drives |
| 6 |
> a person to do that? The most I've ever done is move /usr/portage and |
| 7 |
> /usr/src to other places. My /usr never has all that much in it beyond |
| 8 |
> those two directories, along with maybe /usr/share. Would it not be |
| 9 |
> easier for you in the long run to move /usr back to / and not have to |
| 10 |
> deal with this question at all? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It should be moving in the other direction for stability reasons and |
| 13 |
busybox is no full answer. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
On OpenBSD which has the benefit of userland being part of it. All the |
| 16 |
critical single user binaries are in root and built statically as much |
| 17 |
as possible, maximising system reliability no matter the custom |
| 18 |
requirements or packages. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The way I have it on OpenBSD |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
/ ro |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
100 megabytes and I never need to fsck and can reliably fix all |
| 25 |
but the most likely problem and snapshot quickly, though there is no |
| 26 |
need as the kernel is rock solid. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
/usr ro,nodev |
| 29 |
~600 megabytes that I almost never need to fsck even when I pull the |
| 30 |
plug |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
/usr/local ro,nodev,nosuid |
| 33 |
All installed packages go here and I can give users the ability to only |
| 34 |
mount writeable this location. There are other plusses I won't bother |
| 35 |
going into. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
All the BSDs and debian stable (old and initramfs) still get's this |
| 39 |
right with debian suggesting a seperate /usr during install in |
| 40 |
compliance with the filesystem hiearchical standard and the upcoming |
| 41 |
draft/version 3, which states the real technical and uptime benefits of |
| 42 |
a seperate /usr. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/FHS |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Unfortunately stability and security often only get's noticed and |
| 47 |
chosen over other function when it's completely obliterated and has |
| 48 |
stopped functioning alltogether. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
When hard worked (including rusty russel) documents like this get |
| 51 |
ignored when freedesktop.org is given so much credence even though |
| 52 |
freedesktop.org is actually simply stating opinion without having |
| 53 |
debate/comments on it's site and in contrast a combined root/usr has no |
| 54 |
technical benefit not addressed elsewhere (grub etc..) and when the |
| 55 |
issues in userland are far from insurmountable it is quite worrying and |
| 56 |
I am grateful to those who have stood up against this and the trend |
| 57 |
of added complexity into pid1/systemd and early boot. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
What is also worrying is the recent trends of the kits, udisks |
| 60 |
dropping features for months to get multiseat and dbus getting |
| 61 |
everywhere like Windows and RPC. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
I can take spread out documentation compared to OpenBSD but some of |
| 64 |
these issues are quite rediculous, I just wish OpenBSD had more devs for |
| 65 |
KMS and stable updates as it is perhaps due to being a smaller project |
| 66 |
involving both core userland and kernel and with hard fast goals, far |
| 67 |
better managed. |
Archives