Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs / distinction,
>>> then there is no "before /usr is mounted".
>>
>> But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
>
> Why, exactly? I know people think it's obvious, but the lack of
> stated reasons worries me.
>
> I know the *original* reasons why / needed to be small, but they don't
> apply anymore. So I'll buy the "it's obvious" if you can state the
> original reasons and explain why you think they still apply. If not,
> then what is the current reason?
>
> Thomas
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
- a larger FS has more chance of failing so you risk having a fully
broken system more often
- /usr can be easily network (shared accross the same arch) mounted
while / (due to /etc) can't
- / needs functioning device nodes on it while usr can be mounted nodev
- a small / can be replicated across many disks to ensure the system
always comes up and e.g. at least send an email to the admin. / can
even be an initrd
...
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
