From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Dec 11 21: 3:50 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B354337B41B for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 21:03:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fBC59Qk07926; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 21:09:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200112120509.fBC59Qk07926@mass.dis.org> To: Warner Losh Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Getting rid of /usr file system (was: Using a larger block size on large filesystems) In-Reply-To: Message from Warner Losh of "Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:40:37 MST." <200112112240.fBBMebM31038@harmony.village.org> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 21:09:26 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > However, the argument for /usr is more than just that it is for crash > recovery. It is? Sounds like there are lots of retconned reasons that could equally easily be worked around. 8) > I'd have fewer if /usr was mounted read only (which it > can't be for the man page issue, and other problems). For manpages, we should be using /var/man/catman. I'm not sure what other problems you're referring to; perhaps enumerating them would help? > The argument is that if / is small, the chances of it being corrupt > are smaller and the risk is lower of using it as an unchecked file > system. The counter-argument is that making it "small" doesn't help it much, wheras making it "passive" (readonly) would. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message