Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:16:39 +1000 From: Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/home vs /home Message-ID: <4F3F1817.7030009@herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3D08D03C85ACFBB1ABCDC5DA@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> References: <4F3ECF23.5000706@fisglobal.com> <20120217234623.cf7e169c.freebsd@edvax.de> <3D08D03C85ACFBB1ABCDC5DA@mac-pro.magehandbook.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/18/12 12:16, Daniel Staal wrote: > --As of February 17, 2012 11:46:23 PM +0100, Polytropon is alleged to > have said: > >> Well, to be honest, I never liked the "old style" default >> with /home being part of /usr. As I mentioned before, _my_ >> default style for separated partitions include: >> >> / >> swap >> /tmp >> /var >> /usr >> /home >> >> In special cases, add /opt or /scratch as separate partitions >> with intendedly limited sizes. >> >> You can see that all user data is kept independently from >> the rest of the system. It can easily be switched over to >> a separate "home disk" if needed. > > --As for the rest, it is mine. > > I'm in agreement with you on that I like to have /home be a separate > partition, and not under /usr. (Of course, my current zfs system has > 40 partitions...) Partly though I recognize that I like it because > that's what I'm used to, and how I learned to set it up originally. > (My first unix experience was with OpenBSD, over 10 years ago now.) > > I've never seen anything listing the main reasons for having /home > under /usr though. I figure there must be a decent reason why. Would > anyone care to enlighten me? What are the perceived advantages? > (Particularly if you then make a symlink to /home.) I always thought /usr was like user partition :) But seriously, for the pedantic yes, but for a desktop user (at least) having home on /usr partition makes sense - balances space and functionality; plus a lack of nodes on the disk for partitions? Limit was 8 I think. But now with /usr/home if you want to install from ports it can take a few gig, but that can be wasted because you're not always installing from ports, so might as well share space with the home directories and balance that way. Otherwise you'd need 30G (about) for /usr/ports and all the stuff you want to install and then that cannot be used at all for /home which could be cleared quite easily to make room if necessary if it was on the same partition. All is possible, but not all is necessary or recommended. If I seem a little 'spacy' I have kids hurrying me to make their lunch... ;) > > Just a question that's been bugging me, as I read through different > FreeBSD docs. > > Daniel T. Staal > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you > are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use > the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will > expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, > whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of > local copyright law. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F3F1817.7030009>