m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: > I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by > prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a standalone > /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth mentioning does it > (not Ubuntu, not Fedora, not SuSE). > > I know that Debian supports this, but I also know that maintaning > forever large changes to packages for no real gain sucks. > > So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone > /usr? > If you do, please provide a detailed real-world use case. > A partial list of invalid reasons is: > - "I heard that this was popular in 1998" > - "it's a longstanding tradition to support this" > - "it's really useful on my 386 SX with a 40 MB hard disk" > > -- > ciao, > Marco
Home case: / is a small raid1 that is directly booted into without initramfs /usr is on lvm on raid5 Without a seperate /usr this would require the use of an initramfs and seperate /boot partition or much more space. Work case: / is an initramfs /usr is shared over network for many hosts Useability reasons: - If fsck repairs anything while checking / the system has to reboot. All other filesystems can just continue. By splitting / and /usr there is less of a chance of / needing repair saving the reboot. - Fsck for / is run first and then other filesystems can run in parallel. - Less chance of filesystem corruption on / if /usr is another filesystem. That also means I can still boot even when /usr is damaged and then try to repair it. - / is small and relatively constant while /usr grows all the time. With / outside LVM it can be booted directly and /usr inside LVM allows easy resize when more space is needed. - / contains data that might need to be encrypted (/etc) while /usr can be left plain for more speed/less cpu usage. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org