From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Nov 12 0:27:12 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from matjes.koerber.org (matjes.koerber.org [203.127.219.241]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3150137B479 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 00:27:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from vademecum (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by matjes.koerber.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eAC8PPu17012; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:25:25 +0800 From: "Mathias Körber" To: "Greg Lehey" , "Mathias Körber" Cc: Subject: RE: More partitions on a single slice? Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:25:21 +0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20001112180459.P802@wantadilla.lemis.com> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > yes, but symlinking /usr/local to /home/local is ugly. It encroaches = on > > the diskspace set aside for users own (personal) files. >=20 > That's a circular argument. It only encroaches if you set aside > enough space for users' own (personal) files. I'm advocating more > space. No it's not circular. I set aside X MB for users' /home, thus I don't want (localized) system stuff to use up that space too. Where is there any circular reasoning in that? I advocate separating different uses of space. > > Quotas apply on a per user basis, not on a per-application basis. > > If I have several users working on the same application etc, > > I'd have to restrict them separately for this (and if the app > > lived on the same FS as eg /home, then I'd simultaneously > > restrict them in their /home, as quotas are only as granular as your > > filesystem). >=20 > This is possibly a valid counterargument. Can you give a convincing > example? I'll try and think one up.. > > But why then have this arbitrary restrictions in the first place? >=20 > They've been there forever. I can't remember a UNIX which really > gives significantly more than 7 file system partitions. System V has > a total of 15, but most of them are special purpose. And I suppose > the general feeling is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Linux does (at least on ide disks): up to 23 partitions (I think) The SCSI driver has a lower limit (16?). I agree that 23 is a bit excessive, but 15 or 16 sounds at least reasonable, as it allows separating out several areas and not forces one to combine different contents. But I agree, this is religious topic, and we'll like go in circles here. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message