On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 10:31 +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: > Note that /opt is intended for software (and data) that is not a part > of the system/distro, is installed in a non-standard way, etc. This is > something you may want to keep intact, e.g., when you upgrade the base > system.
What, then, is the difference between /opt and /usr/local? > You could mount an add-on partition as /usr/opt, of course, but what > would be the point in the context of your question? It is actually > more logical to have /opt than /usr/opt. > > It is not clear to me what your partition scheme is. On the one hand, > you say that /opt is a part of /, on the other hand, it sounds like > you mounted /usr sepaately, not as a part of /. It is possible, of > course, though not very frequent - I'd say the opposite is more > common. My partitioning scheme is as follows: /boot - in a separate physical partition All the following are logical volumes in an encrypted volume group: / - root and everything else (including /etc and /opt) /tmp /usr /var /home My goal is to prevent exhaustion of inodes or blocks in one partition from bringing the whole system down. Hence the separation between /tmp,/var and the other partitions. Is there a system of per-directory quotas for limiting the resources occupied by any directory? If yes, it could replace partitioning the --- Omer -- In civilized societies, captions are as important in movies as soundtracks, professional photography and expert editing. My own blog is at http://www.zak.co.il/tddpirate/ My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone. They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which I may be affiliated in any way. WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
