Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:22:52 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Lars Eighner <lars@larseighner.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/home vs /home (was: Re: One or Four?) Message-ID: <20120218112252.772c878b.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1202172316230.11247@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc.pbz> References: <4F3ECF23.5000706@fisglobal.com> <20120217234623.cf7e169c.freebsd@edvax.de> <3D08D03C85ACFBB1ABCDC5DA@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1202172316230.11247@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc.pbz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:05:49 -0600 (CST), Lars Eighner wrote: > It seems to me that partition and mount point are being confused to a > degree. There is no reason what is mounted at /usr/home cannot be a > separate partition as well as if it were mounted at root. I thought of this fact as such an obvious thing that I didn't bother even mentioning it. :-) Of course, /usr/home can be a separate partition (even on a separate disk), just like /usr/ports or /usr/obj or even /usr/local could be. I've also seen systems having several subtrees in /export, each one being on an individual partition, some of them even on an own disk. > There are some > good reasons for the user directories (and perhaps some other data) to be on > a separate partition - mostly the reasons relate to ease of back up and > migration whether planned or emergency. Arguments about where to mount that > partition are not so practical, being more in the philosophic and historical > realm. Pick one, recognize not everyone will be on the same page and put > appropriate links in. I'd still be interested in why this particular location has been chosen. The typical access path for home directories is /home (that's why the symlink), and as long as this "top level entry" points to the proper data (no matter where they are located), it should be fine. > There may have been a historic reason, but now it is philosophical - trying > to keep the system and userland distinction clear. But there are many flaws > in the attempted separation. /var for example is the default location for > many logs, both system and user, the spools (remember news?), and databases. > You really cannot drop /usr into a different system and have an operational > result. Correct. Also see the difference in usage interpretation for /tmp (not guaranteed to be present after reboot) and /var/tmp (should be present in the same state after reboot). The separation of concepts FreeBSD is famous for basically is "the OS" (primarily /, /etc, /(s)bin, /usr/(s)bin) that provides the minimal functionality to bring up the operating system even in worst case, where only the root partition needs to be mounted, which can be done in read-only mode, to finally reach the single- user mode, and "3rd party applications" (everything in /usr/local). However, both system and 3rd party programs access things in /var or /tmp. Not having actual _user_ data in between can be a benefit especially when something goes wrong. > (I put the home directories, the www directory, databases and spools all on > the same physical partition which I mount arbitrarily at /usr/local/data. It > isn't exactly plug-n-play, but in tests and emergencies is has proved > practical to drop the partition into several linices with a high level of > functionally - depending on application versioning being close to in sync.) And I assume you still have /home pointing to the correct location on that "new" path? -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120218112252.772c878b.freebsd>