Re: Partitioning
From: Bill Vermillion (bv_at_wjv.comREMOVE)
Date: 09/10/03
- Next message: Bill Vermillion: "Re: Services trouble!!!"
- Previous message: the Bare: "gcc 3.2.3"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:27:01 GMT
In article <3f411048$0$135$e4fe514c@dreader5.news.xs4all.nl>,
Bas v.d. Wiel <bwiel@home.nl> wrote:
>"ViperDK (Daniel K.)" <ViperDK@gmx.net> wrote in message
>news:bhr10p$uv5$07$1@news.t-online.com...
>> and it's differences. Now i want to know why i should divide
>> the disk into many parts for / /usr /var and so on. is there a
>> good reason for that or is that maybe a thing that someone did
>> in the past and noone questioned? is there any bad effect if
>> i only make a swap partition and one for the root and all its
>> subdirectories?
>On large systems, and on systems that need redundancy in some
>areas, the division is logical and practical. Many Linux
>distributions have, for instance, a separate /boot which they
>don't mount during normal operation.
And an FYI here. Some Unix system use a /boot system for booting
as their standard file systems can be made bootable.
>This makes sure the system can actually boot, but the kernel and
>other files needed for booting won't ever get corrupted due to
>the system behaving badly or crashing since the filesystem is
>never accessed by the running system.
And some that use the /boot avoid the corruption problem by making
the /boot fs a read-only file system.
Of course hardware failure makes everything susceptible to damage
- even non-fs portions.
-- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
- Next message: Bill Vermillion: "Re: Services trouble!!!"
- Previous message: the Bare: "gcc 3.2.3"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
