Kevin Chadwick wrote: > On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:32:24 +0200 > nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: > >> My thanks, too! There's nothing like reading on some actual experience >> with this. So this was once the reason to keep / separate. Not that >> important anymore (but this is still no excuse to force people to keep >> /usr in the same filesystem). > Sorry but real world data is important and I am fully aware of the > academic theorist problems compared to practical experience but this > simply doesn't apply here. I didn't see any evidence or > argument that a larger root conducting millions more writes is as safe > as a smaller read only one perhaos not touched for months. > > The testing criteria were very generally put and just because an > earthquake hasn't hit 200 building in the last 50 years is no reason to > remove shock absorbers or other measures from sky scrapers. > >
Question. A file system, /usr for example, is mounted read only. The system crashes for whatever reason such as a power failure. Since it is mounted read only, would there be a larger or smaller risk of corrupted data on that partition? From what I understand, the possible corruption is from files not being written to the drive but since it is mounted read only, then that removes that possibility. Just checking on a thought here. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
