| 1 |
On Saturday 28 Sep 2013 01:39:57 David W Noon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:10:14 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote about Re: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01: |
| 5 |
> > On 28/09/2013 00:57, Dale wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Bruce Hill wrote: |
| 7 |
> > >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:33:02PM -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 8 |
> > >>> I'm hoping that since I use eudev, I don't have to worry about |
| 9 |
> > >>> this. If I do, this could get interesting, again. Dale |
| 10 |
> > >> |
| 11 |
> > >> Do you have /usr separate from / ? |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > Yep. From my understanding tho, eudev is not supposed to be |
| 14 |
> > > affected by this problem tho. |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > One reason for this being seperate, I have / and /boot on a regular |
| 17 |
> > > partition and everything else on LVM. Sometimes that /usr gets a |
| 18 |
> > > bit full. It's not so bad after I moved all the portage stuff out |
| 19 |
> > > and put it in /var. Now I have to watch /var too. lol |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > Ask yourself this question: |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Why do you have /usr separate? |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > No really, *why exactly*? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> You write as though you expected the question to be regarded as |
| 28 |
> rhetorical. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I can't speak for Dale, but since I have much the same arrangement |
| 31 |
> (with /boot and / on physical partitions and everything else under LVM2 |
| 32 |
> control) I shall write from my perspective. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> The reason I have /usr separate is so that I can have it striped |
| 35 |
> without needing an initramfs. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> > One of the very first things you do with /usr at boot time is mount |
| 38 |
> > it, and from then on you use it exactly as if it were always on / |
| 39 |
> > anyway. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> No. The I/O characteristics of a striped /usr are rather different from |
| 42 |
> those of / on a simple partition. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> > I'll bet that since you moved all of portage out, your mount |
| 45 |
> > options and fs configs are the same between the two anyway. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Again no. My portage volume has different mount options from /usr, as |
| 48 |
> it has nosuid and noexec in force. The portage volume is not striped |
| 49 |
> either, as it does not get as much I/O traffic as /usr. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Another reason that I have seen mentioned for running /usr separately is to |
| 52 |
mount it as read only for security reasons. It is a moot point how much this |
| 53 |
improves security, other than by yourself when you run 'rm -Rf /usr' one day |
| 54 |
by mistake. ;-) |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
Regards, |
| 58 |
Mick |
Archives