Je 2003-09-10 23:45:11 +0100, Jody Belka skribis: > > > /usr/local 1gig reiserfs > > > > Why bother having this separate? I used to have a lot of stuff in local > > but now that I use portage, I have nothing in it. > > As Chris said in one of his replies, it makes things much easier if/when i > need to trash the o/s, as my non-package managed custom stuff will stay > intact without any difficulty.
I've heard this argument quite a bit and (of course this is IMO) I don't buy the cost/benefit. a) how often do you trash your base OS? On a server? b) how hard is mv or cp -a /usr/local /some/other/place versus the pain of having /usr fill up and /usr/local being a lush, tantalising oasis of space? On my primary server, just fyi, $ df -k /usr Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/sda5 2885780 1481152 1258040 55% /usr $ /usr/src/linux & its .bz2 is 200MB alone. 2GB is not enough, IMO. If you ever find yourself deleting (say) /usr/src/linux in search of space you are wasting time & energy. And then there's the whole other tack of "fsck it, let the kernel worry about it", (e.g. my dev. workstation) $ df -k Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/hdb6 38448276 7408920 29086256 21% / /dev/hdb7 790556 488476 261920 66% /var /dev/hdb1 31079 13083 16392 45% /boot $ The _moment_ you start pissing about moving files around to work with a full partition you may well find you have anulled any possible marginal benefit of using partitions. Paul -- Paul Makepeace ....................................... http://paulm.com/ "If break chickens into little parts, then I'd need an extra piece." -- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/
