On Thursday 16 February 2006 15:45, Alexander Skwar wrote: > Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: > > On Thursday 16 February 2006 14:06, Alexander Skwar wrote: > >> Izar Ilun wrote: > >> > I say that, It'll be just: > >> > - /boot > >> > - swap > >> > - /home > >> > - / (all the rest) > >> > >> That's not advisable. I'd strongly suggest to create > >> filesystems for /boot, swap, /home, /opt, /usr, /var > >> and / (of course). This way you're more flexible > >> and also a bit safer (not such a high risk of running > >> out of space on /). > > > > and he wastes a lot of space, > > No, he doesn't. Where does he waste space?
because you shall not fill up any partition more than 85% or fragmentation will go up insanly and performance go down to the bottom. > > > makes boot a lot longer > > Not really. yes, really. > > > and increases head > > movement. > > > > One big / (like 40 or 80GB) will be enough > > Yes, and it's obviously the worst solution. How do > you mount /tmp noexec? How do you mount /usr read-only? why should you mount /usr readonly, if you do your emerging always everyday? Why should he make /tmp noexec, if he is the only user? > > > With that sizes, it is nearly impossible to fill / completly up. > > And it's impossible to have some flexibility. no, it is absolutly flexible - less partitions, more space available, that can be used. And less risk, that any of the partitions fills up. > > > To put everything on its own partition was good, when harddisks were > > 2gb-10gb big. > > And it's still good today. > no it is not > > But today it is just a waste of space and time. > > No, it's absolutely not. yes it is. It wastes space, makes boot much longer. More partitions = more haead movement = higher risk of damage. More partitions = more risk that one of the partitions dies = more risk of fatal data loss. More partitions = less space available = more money wasted. You see, there are a lot of good reasons to keep the number of patitions low. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
