From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Jun 25 07:21:18 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 9028815C2E45 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:21:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@qeng-ho.org) Received: from bede.qeng-ho.org (bede.qeng-ho.org [217.155.128.241]) (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 70BCD755C0 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:21:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@qeng-ho.org) Received: from arthur.home.qeng-ho.org (arthur.home.qeng-ho.org [172.23.1.2]) by bede.qeng-ho.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85CA10378; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 08:21:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: Can I recreate my .snap directories ? To: Polytropon , Michael Sierchio Cc: Thomas Mueller , FreeBSD Questions References: <2214.1561413756@segfault.tristatelogic.com> <5d11700c.1c69fb81.56ede.4e36SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20190625071232.b01cecfc.freebsd@edvax.de> From: Arthur Chance Message-ID: <5dd4f68d-d99a-4ab7-a217-76b9fee372e7@qeng-ho.org> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 08:21:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190625071232.b01cecfc.freebsd@edvax.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 70BCD755C0 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd@qeng-ho.org designates 217.155.128.241 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd@qeng-ho.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.60 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:217.155.128.240/29]; IP_SCORE(-2.35)[ip: (-7.09), ipnet: 217.155.0.0/16(-3.54), asn: 13037(-1.01), country: GB(-0.09)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[qeng-ho.org]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[mx1.mythic-beasts.com,mx2.mythic-beasts.com]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.95)[-0.946,0]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13037, ipnet:217.155.0.0/16, country:GB]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[twc.com]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] 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 07:21:18 -0000 On 25/06/2019 06:12, Polytropon wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 19:34:48 -0700, Michael Sierchio wrote: >> There will be one per filesystem, provided those filesystems support >> snapshots. >> >> If you see only /.snap, you have one big filesystem. That's okay for toy >> systems, or laptops, but you really want separate filesystems for /var, >> /tmp (which may be a tmpfs), and /usr. > > 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"? I mostly use ZFS these days, but when using UFS I still use functional partitioning. This may just be inertia and habit on my part as I started using Unix back on the 6th Edition when disk sizes made it such partitioning necessary, but I tend to prefer /tmp and /var to be separate from /, even if /usr isn't. -- What do we want? A time machine! When do we want it? Errm ...