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