Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-19 Thread kashani
Alexander Skwar Yes Mysql writes to /tmp by default and yes you can change it in which case if that partition is full then you see the same behavior. So we can say that Mysql really wants its temp space to have enough room for it to write and sometimes it needs a few GB rather than a few hu

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-19 Thread Alexander Skwar
kashani wrote: > Alexander Skwar wrote: >> kashani wrote: >>>Assuming it's a database server a full /tmp will cause some issues. >> >> In how far? Neither Oracle nor MySQL write to /tmp. MySQL may create >> a socket file, which by default resides in /tmp. But /tmp is a rather >> bad place for suc

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-19 Thread kashani
Alexander Skwar wrote: kashani wrote: Assuming it's a database server a full /tmp will cause some issues. In how far? Neither Oracle nor MySQL write to /tmp. MySQL may create a socket file, which by default resides in /tmp. But /tmp is a rather bad place for such a file anyway... Never ra

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-19 Thread Alexander Skwar
kashani wrote: > Assuming it's a database server a full /tmp will cause some issues. In how far? Neither Oracle nor MySQL write to /tmp. MySQL may create a socket file, which by default resides in /tmp. But /tmp is a rather bad place for such a file anyway... Alexander Skwar -- gentoo-user@gent

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-19 Thread kashani
Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: Hi, On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:51:21 +0100 Maarten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Back to the thread... I started wondering about something. I thought a 100% full root filesystem was deadly, but never thought about /tmp. So I'd like to ask, what is more deadly for a system, a

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-18 Thread Hans-Werner Hilse
Hi, On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:51:21 +0100 Maarten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Back to the thread... I started wondering about something. I thought a > 100% full root filesystem was deadly, but never thought about /tmp. > So I'd like to ask, what is more deadly for a system, a full root FS, a > full

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-18 Thread Maarten
Uwe Thiem wrote: > On 18 February 2006 15:05, Maarten wrote: > >>Ryan Tandy wrote: >> >>>Maarten wrote: >>Oh well, it only amounts to 23 days of my Athlons' undivided attention. >>I'll live. ;-) > > > 23 days conpressed into one second. That will be the hard part. ;-) Well, maybe. Depending

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-18 Thread Uwe Thiem
On 18 February 2006 15:05, Maarten wrote: > Ryan Tandy wrote: > > Maarten wrote: > >> Or else, if /usr can be mounted > >> noexec without trouble, I'll donate 75 bogomips to the FSF. > > > > Can we get that in writing, with a signature, creative use of {sym,hard} > > links and nested mounts

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-18 Thread Maarten
Ryan Tandy wrote: > Maarten wrote: > >> Or else, if /usr can be mounted >> noexec without trouble, I'll donate 75 bogomips to the FSF. >> > > Can we get that in writing, with a signature, creative use of {sym,hard} > links and nested mounts notwithstanding? ;) Certainly ;-) Oh well,

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-18 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 01:23:51 +0100, Maarten wrote: > "You suck AND you are wrong" > "I do not suck. YOU suck!" > "Do NOT!" > "Do TOO!" > "No you suck. And you are wrong..." > > Now what age-group type conversation does that remind you of...? The Internet Age :( -- Neil Bothwick Windows Error

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-17 Thread Rumen Yotov
On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 01:23 +0100, Maarten wrote: > Eric Bliss wrote: > > On Friday 17 February 2006 14:36, Rumen Yotov wrote: > > > >>Hi, > >>Please don't take this post as a signal for more battles. > >>IMHO there are many true facts from both of you. > >>Just a few point, as i have some (limite

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-17 Thread Ryan Tandy
Maarten wrote: Or else, if /usr can be mounted noexec without trouble, I'll donate 75 bogomips to the FSF. Can we get that in writing, with a signature, creative use of {sym,hard} links and nested mounts notwithstanding? ;) Where "trouble" is defined as a system that won't run (rela

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-17 Thread Maarten
Eric Bliss wrote: > On Friday 17 February 2006 14:36, Rumen Yotov wrote: > >>Hi, >>Please don't take this post as a signal for more battles. >>IMHO there are many true facts from both of you. >>Just a few point, as i have some (limited experience with hardened >>systems). >>1.For 2-3 years using p

Re: [gentoo-user] /usr as noexec? (was GB for / partition flamewar)

2006-02-17 Thread Eric Bliss
On Friday 17 February 2006 14:36, Rumen Yotov wrote: > Hi, > Please don't take this post as a signal for more battles. > IMHO there are many true facts from both of you. > Just a few point, as i have some (limited experience with hardened > systems). > 1.For 2-3 years using portage-tree in /var/por