From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 18 05:44:40 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B883B106566B for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:44:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from leslie@eskk.nu) Received: from mx1.bjare.net (mx1.bjare.net [212.31.160.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459758FC0A for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:44:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.bjare.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49EED5E223; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:44:39 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx1.bjare.net X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.478 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001] Received: from mx1.bjare.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.bjare.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id RyCQQoHXVfnC; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:44:37 +0100 (CET) X-BN-MX1: ja X-BN-MailInfo: BjareNet Received: from bljbsd01.no-ip.org (c-195-216-040-164.static.bjare.net [195.216.40.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.bjare.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D76BA5E1B4; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:44:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F3F3ACB.2080406@eskk.nu> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:44:43 +0100 From: Leslie Jensen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120215 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Polytropon References: <4F3ECF23.5000706@fisglobal.com> <20120217234623.cf7e169c.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20120217234623.cf7e169c.freebsd@edvax.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: One or Four? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:44:40 -0000 2012-02-17 23:46, Polytropon skrev: > Four? There should be five! :-) > > Read on to find out why. > > > > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:05:23 -0800, Robison, Dave wrote: >> We'd like a show of hands to see if folks prefer the "old" style default >> with 4 partitions and swap, or the newer iteration with 1 partition and >> swap. > > In my case, preference depends on use. When I'm unable to > predict how partition occupation will develop, going with > one / partition is a good approach. It can also be useful > for cases like home desktops. > > Other cases, like dedicated servers or systems that use > more than one physical disk (e. g. one system disk, one > home disk) the approach of using more than one partition > is welcome. > > I'd like to mention that using different partitions for > a logical separation of mechanisms and functionalities > can be a _big_ help in worst case (which you'll hopefully > never will encounter, but be prepared). For example, if > you have file system trouble with the /home partition, > you can bring the system up in a limited state (SUM), > make the partition "ro" and get the data. You can then > boot the system into the normal state (MUM) with using > the copy you made, leaving the original /home partition > unmounted and untouched. In case of data recovery and > forensic analysis this can be your chance to get your > data back. > > > >> We realize that one can use bsdinstall to create as many partitions as >> one wants. However, the new default is for one partition and swap. We >> want to know if people would prefer the older style default with four >> partitions and swap when selecting "Guided Partitioning" and "Use Entire >> Disk". > > 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. > > What's the reason for this? Limited partitions are often > considered a problem, but they can be a system's life saver. > Just imagine you have all functional parts of the system in > one big / tree, let's also say /tmp is writable for users > (and it's not a memory file system); now a maliciously acting > user or program could fill /tmp with lots of data, occupying > the full disk. Soon, /var/log cannot be written anymore, and > also other processes that need to write something may get > into trouble. If /tmp is a separate partition, only /tmp can > get "out of disk space", with /var being fully untouched. > > Also keep in mind that some tools like to operate on partition > level, such as dump (and restore). System tools like quota can > also be used on a partition level. As I mentioned before, being > able to mount a partition read-only can be helpful sometimes, > same goes for other mount options, such as noexec or noatime. > When dealing with this low level stuff is neccessary (e. g. on > embedded systems or systems that are low on resources where you > need to squeeze every bit of performance by fine tuning), having > individual partitions can be a big help. > > > >> Let the majority decide which layout is preferred for the default. > > Why not add a selection to the installer, something like > this: > > Partition scheme > ---------------- > > [ ] all in one + swap > Create one partition containing all subtrees > plus one swap partition. > > [ ] separate partitioning + swap > Create /, /var, /tmp and /usr (including home) > partitions plus one swap partition. > > [ ] user-defined > Make your own partitioning selection manually. > > Of course, the default SIZES for second choice should be > reasonable. > > This suggestion gets my wote /L