Re: [gentoo-user] Separate /usr [was: Clock is way off]

[Mick]

On Wednesday 09 May 2007 22:22, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 May 2007, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote
>
> about 'Re: [gentoo-user] Separate /usr  [was: Clock is way off]':
> > Hello Daniel Iliev,
> >
> > > Some say it gives performance boost (I'm not sure about it), but more
> > > importantly it gives (partial) protection from file system damage.
> >
> > You could also argue that /usr needs the least protection from
> > filesystem damage, because it contains no data. /usr can be repaired
> > with
> > a reinstall, unlike /var, /home or /etc.
>
> That's my view, which is why /usr (fast, RAID0) is separate from /
> (containing /etc; RAID6) on my machine.

These days I keep /usr/portage on a separate partition to minimise fs 
fragmentation.  On an old slooow box of mine I have /usr/local/bin 
and /usr/local/lib on separate disks, as well as /var/tmp and /usr/bin and 
keep them on primary partitions for extra speed and parallel 
access/processing across two different IDE controllers:

http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Multi-Disk-HOWTO.html

One can get really silly at this, I certainly did, but on modern machines with 
SATA drives the difference in speed is probably marginal.  I didn't keep 
notes of any benchmarks but despite the asthmatic hardware my 
multi-disk/partitioning scheme did pay some noticeable dividends as far as I 
can recall.  Of course, YMMV.
-- 
Regards,
Mick