| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:27:39 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> > Honestly, I tend not to create separate partitions for separate mount |
| 5 |
>> > points these days. At least, not on personal systems. For servers, |
| 6 |
>> > it's can be beneficial to have /var separate from /, or /var/log |
| 7 |
>> > separate from /var, or /var/spool, or /var/lib/mysql, or what have |
| 8 |
>> > you. But the biggest driver for that, IME, is if one of those fills |
| 9 |
>> > up, it can't take down the rest of the host. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> The other big use case these days would be SSDs. I tend to have one |
| 12 |
>> SSD filesystem for root, and one SSD filesystem for everything else. |
| 13 |
>> That means a lot of bind mounts, but it all works. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Bind mounts? I thought you would use btrfs subvolumes! |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Often the bind mounts point to btrfs subvolumes. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Yeah, I guess I could directly mount all those subvolumes, but I find |
| 21 |
symlinks or bind mounts easier. The other factor is that if I have |
| 22 |
unnecessary subvolumes then I'm having to manage snapshots across more |
| 23 |
of them and my snapshots are less atomic, since snapshots don't cross |
| 24 |
subvolume boundaries (which is something which ought to be |
| 25 |
configurable). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives