From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Jun 25 05:30:04 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0438C15C05FB for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 05:30:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Olivier.Nicole@cs.ait.ac.th) Received: from mail.cs.ait.ac.th (mail.cs.ait.ac.th [192.41.170.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC418714B9 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 05:29:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Olivier.Nicole@cs.ait.ac.th) Received: from mail.cs.ait.ac.th (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.ait.ac.th (Postfix) with ESMTP id E163361F83; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:29:54 +0700 (+07) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.ait.ac.th; h= content-type:content-type:mime-version:message-id:date:date :in-reply-to:subject:subject:from:from:received:received :received; s=selector1; t=1561440594; x=1563254995; bh=yGC6o42Z/ kgWrspuY3hLmlaBmFydwAAXKkvVzMcVRXc=; b=ec8BGkUif7pua8kQBZZFuoKEF RKX8LwJycLN8LfUVSpgmJbSl2k3eWdy6n2VDKTo30FgWpDI97W/u4MBn18MPrn2C /vQ2S6T5OBmeh3/KgOmwm1K0F94iLMyK6lWkzpJLm9ZAqCNWiHB6z499mtUV9Ln6 9F1hGgrocixxifeTZM= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.ait.ac.th Received: from mail.cs.ait.ac.th ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.ait.ac.th (mail.cs.ait.ac.th [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id nf3RSv6bw1mu; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:29:54 +0700 (+07) Received: from banyan.cs.ait.ac.th (banyan.cs.ait.ac.th [192.41.170.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.cs.ait.ac.th (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EDD061F82; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:29:54 +0700 (+07) Received: (from on@localhost) by banyan.cs.ait.ac.th (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x5P5TpS4025621; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:29:51 +0700 (ICT) (envelope-from on@banyan.cs.ait.ac.th) From: Olivier To: Polytropon Cc: kudzu@tenebras.com, mueller6722@twc.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Can I recreate my .snap directories ? In-Reply-To: <20190625071232.b01cecfc.freebsd@edvax.de> (message from Polytropon on Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:12:32 +0200) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:29:50 +0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: DC418714B9 X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=cs.ait.ac.th header.s=selector1 header.b=ec8BGkUi; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=cs.ait.ac.th; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of Olivier.Nicole@cs.ait.ac.th designates 192.41.170.16 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=Olivier.Nicole@cs.ait.ac.th X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.65 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[cs.ait.ac.th:s=selector1]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_MED(0.00)[cs.ait.ac.th.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.11.2]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; IP_SCORE(-2.97)[ip: (-7.88), ipnet: 192.41.170.0/24(-3.94), asn: 4767(-3.15), country: TH(0.09)]; RCVD_DKIM_ARC_DNSWL_MED(-0.50)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[16.170.41.192.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.11.2]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: mail.cs.ait.ac.th]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[cs.ait.ac.th,none]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[cs.ait.ac.th:+]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.968,0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:4767, ipnet:192.41.170.0/24, country:TH]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RBL_COMPOSITE_RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED_DWL_DNSWL_MED(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 05:30:04 -0000 Polytropon writes: > Is this still the case? > > Don't get me wrong - I've always been a fan of functional partitioning, > especially to stop misbehaving processes to mess up the whole system > ("disk full, can't even write error log") as well as using features > such as noexec on "untrusted user filesystems". With ZFS of course, > this is all a lot easier, but with UFS, do people still use functional > partitioning instead of "putting everything into one big / because > that's how you do it today"? It is the case for me, for all good reasons you mention above. Plus different backup policies on different file systems, plus moving one file system around without to have to move the whole machine... "putting everything into one big / because that's how you do it today" is what microsoft does, it does not mean it is the best solution. Olivier --