| 1 |
Kevin Chadwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:32:24 +0200 |
| 3 |
> nunojsilva@×××××××.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> My thanks, too! There's nothing like reading on some actual experience |
| 6 |
>> with this. So this was once the reason to keep / separate. Not that |
| 7 |
>> important anymore (but this is still no excuse to force people to keep |
| 8 |
>> /usr in the same filesystem). |
| 9 |
> Sorry but real world data is important and I am fully aware of the |
| 10 |
> academic theorist problems compared to practical experience but this |
| 11 |
> simply doesn't apply here. I didn't see any evidence or |
| 12 |
> argument that a larger root conducting millions more writes is as safe |
| 13 |
> as a smaller read only one perhaos not touched for months. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The testing criteria were very generally put and just because an |
| 16 |
> earthquake hasn't hit 200 building in the last 50 years is no reason to |
| 17 |
> remove shock absorbers or other measures from sky scrapers. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Question. A file system, /usr for example, is mounted read only. The |
| 23 |
system crashes for whatever reason such as a power failure. Since it is |
| 24 |
mounted read only, would there be a larger or smaller risk of corrupted |
| 25 |
data on that partition? From what I understand, the possible corruption |
| 26 |
is from files not being written to the drive but since it is mounted |
| 27 |
read only, then that removes that possibility. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Just checking on a thought here. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Dale |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
:-) :-) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives