| 1 |
On 04/24/2013 11:39 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-04-23 12:34 PM, Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Am 23.04.2013 16:44, schrieb Tanstaafl: |
| 4 |
>>> /boot (ext2), 100M |
| 5 |
>>> /swap, 2G |
| 6 |
>>> / (ext4), 40G |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> then on LVM |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> /tmp (ext2), 5G? <- how big? |
| 11 |
>>> /var/tmp (ext2), 5G? <- how big? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>> If this is a production server I wouldn't use ext2. In the case of a |
| 14 |
>> crash or reboot, you don't want to loose precious uptime just because of |
| 15 |
>> fsck or corrupted file systems. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Noted, changed these to ext4... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Sideways question: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Are there disk-based filesystems which don't persist? I don't think I've |
| 22 |
heard of any, short of cranking up the amount of space dedicated to |
| 23 |
swap, and using tmpfs. |
Archives