Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org): > you could have noticed that in essence Roger pointed to the merged-usr > solution as not only impractical, but also risky and of doubtful > usefulness.
Noted without comment: Modern disk sizes make partitioning a separate /usr unnecessary and undesirable. (Both are of course /possible/, but there is precious little to gain by doing so.) Oh, on reconsideration, I'll comment (on that snippet as representative of the whole), but will then wish to move on. I posted upthread a real-world example of a server partitioning scheme that used separate /usr to good effect on multiple grounds, including (1) grouping filesystems for minimum average HD seeks, (2) distinct mount options per filesystem (e.g., nodev and read-only for /usr) to reduce potential for adminstrative and software mishap, and (3) bespoke filesystem options to eliminate unjustiable overhead (e.g., no journaling on /usr, in light of it normally being mounted read-only). It's vexing to be told that server best practices are unnecessary, undesirable, and gain little (and other places as 'not really doing more than adding extra unnecessary complexity' and that 'none of it actually matters') by someone who seems not to have grasped the issues. But I didn't volunteer to argue. The whole extremely long and tendentious piece is... marbled with such things, and I really have better things to do than to spend an hour dissecting such material. I'd rather say 'Have a great day' and move on. > It seems to go in pretty much the same direction as you, > with a technical and thorough explanation around :) It seems to me that: No and no. Oh well. You have a great day, as well. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
