| 1 |
Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@×××××.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Nov 26, 2015 08:30, "lee" <lee@××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> waltdnes@××××××××.org writes: |
| 5 |
>> > compromised with a small / partition, with empty /home, /opt, /var, |
| 6 |
>> > /usr, and /tmp directories. Their real equivalents are bind-mounted |
| 7 |
>> > from a much larger partition. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Why don't you just mount the large partition somewhere under /mnt and |
| 10 |
>> create symlinks to the directories that are missing on the small |
| 11 |
>> partition? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> wrt space, that doesn't really change things. |
| 14 |
> wrt symlinks, some legacy tools, and regular unix tools have a completely |
| 15 |
> different behavior when traversing symlinks as opposed to regular |
| 16 |
> directories, which bindmounts emulate. although in practice i imagine it |
| 17 |
> wont affect him. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Which tools come to mind? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> youre really just proposing a different way to do the same thing albeit his |
| 22 |
> approach is more stable. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Yes, there are many possibilities here. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
>> Or, why don't you copy the system to the disk that has the large |
| 27 |
>> partition and retire the 500MB disk? That would reduce power |
| 28 |
>> consumption and increase reliability by having less disks in use and by |
| 29 |
>> making it more unlikely to mess up anything due to excessive |
| 30 |
>> partitioning. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> its not 2 disks, its one disk and with partitions. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
He said that he "has a primary partition 1, which covers the entire hard |
| 35 |
drive" and "a small / partition". That made me think that he has two |
| 36 |
disks. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> at any rate his approach is valid. |
Archives