| 1 |
waltdnes@××××××××.org writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I'll admit that my system setup is a bit unusual. A long time ago, in |
| 4 |
> a place far away, hard drives were small, compared to today's standards. |
| 5 |
> The usual unix practice of multiple seprate partitions was not feasable |
| 6 |
> for me, but I did want to keep root on its own partition. So I |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I remember partitioning a 60MB hard disk. That was a really huge disk. |
| 9 |
What's not feasible with partitioning a gigantic 500MB disk? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> compromised with a small / partition, with empty /home, /opt, /var, |
| 12 |
> /usr, and /tmp directories. Their real equivalents are bind-mounted |
| 13 |
> from a much larger partition. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Why don't you just mount the large partition somewhere under /mnt and |
| 16 |
create symlinks to the directories that are missing on the small |
| 17 |
partition? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You might need /sbin and/or /bin on the small partition itself to be |
| 20 |
able to mount anything at all. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Or, why don't you copy the system to the disk that has the large |
| 23 |
partition and retire the 500MB disk? That would reduce power |
| 24 |
consumption and increase reliability by having less disks in use and by |
| 25 |
making it more unlikely to mess up anything due to excessive |
| 26 |
partitioning. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Not that I would do any of this. Disks always come at least in pairs |
| 30 |
because redundancy is required. And since this is only one of your |
| 31 |
machines, you could even run it diskless. |
Archives