| 1 |
On Wed, 9 May 2007 21:03:58 +0100 |
| 2 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Hello Daniel Iliev, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Some say it gives performance boost (I'm not sure about it), but |
| 7 |
> > more importantly it gives (partial) protection from file system |
| 8 |
> > damage. How come? The partitions with most frequent writes are those |
| 9 |
> > containing /var /home and /tmp. In case of power failure or system |
| 10 |
> > lock-up the chances are better that a file system not taking writes |
| 11 |
> > at the moment would survive the crash. Following this logic and |
| 12 |
> > since /usr contains most of the programs and /bin & /sbin contain |
| 13 |
> > most of the basic OS, those should reside on partitions with rare |
| 14 |
> > writes. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> You could also argue that /usr needs the least protection from |
| 17 |
> filesystem damage, because it contains no data. /usr can be repaired |
| 18 |
> with a reinstall, unlike /var, /home or /etc. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That's a good point. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Only for the sake of arguing: those need no FS protection, but |
| 26 |
recent back-ups :) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Best regards, |
| 32 |
Daniel |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives