Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:14:51 +0800 From: "Mathias Körber" <mathias@koerber.org> To: "Greg Lehey" <grog@lemis.com>, "Mathias Koerber" <mathias@koerber.org> Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: More partitions on a single slice? Message-ID: <NEBBLGLDKLMMGKEMEFMFEEBJCDAA.mathias@koerber.org> In-Reply-To: <20001112161406.J802@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sunday, 12 November 2000 at 12:54:50 +0800, Mathias Koerber wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am familiar with Linux, and just trying to install FreeBSD on my =
new
> > notebook.
>=20
> Is that the Vaio you were showing around on Friday evening? You could
> have asked me then :-)
No, this is the DELL, and I decided to put up FreeBSD only
yesterday.
>=20
> > The FreeBSD Manual on one hand explains that it is better having
> > separate filesystems for /var, /tmp etc.
>=20
> And the "Complete FreeBSD" on the other hand recommends as few as
> possible.
But why?
>=20
> > But on the other hand there seems to be severe restriction on
> > partitions available in the one FreeBSD slice on my harddisk.
>=20
> Well, there are 8. That's ample.
I disagree.
>=20
> > (The manual also claims that disklabel prefers the 'e' partition for
> > non-root filesystems.
>=20
> The preference for 'e' is for historical reasons ('a' is for a root
> file system, 'b' for swap, 'c' for the whole disk, 'd' used to be
> special, as I believe it still is in NetBSD), so the first partition
> you could use is 'e'. But it really doesn't make any difference which
> partition you use.
>=20
> > There seems to be a basic assumption here that everything non-root
> > goes into a single partition, or that additional physical disks (or
> > slices) are available).
>=20
> I'd consider that a good assumption.
>=20
> > I want to create:
> > / (ro)
> > /usr (ro)
>=20
> If these are both ro, you should combine them.
>=20
> > /var
> > /home
> > /tmp
>=20
> This can be mfs, which doesn't use a partition.
I like /tmp which survives a reboot. Sometimes I need the
data there. This is one reason I dislike cleaning /tmp
of new files at startup. I only clean /tmp-files older than
14 days.
>=20
> > /usr/local
>=20
> Is there a reason why this can't be a symlink to /home/local?
I could do that, but I consider this ugly. /home is really for
users. I agree on my notebook this may not matter much, but
for other machines?
>=20
> > swap
>=20
> If you have a separate Microsoft partition for your Linux swap, you
> should be able to use it for FreeBSD swap as well. Note that FreeBSD
> trades swap space for performance, so you may need swap more than you
> would for Linux--I'm currently recommending 512 MB, though this would
> be probably more than you'd need on a laptop.
>=20
> > /u0
>=20
> What's this for?
Other project-specific data that is not /home specific...
>=20
> > and potentially more.
>=20
> I'd be interested in why. All this does is give you the opportunity
> to fill up one file system while having plenty of space in the
> others. Symlinks are a workaround when you get to this situation, but
> not a solution. In your particular case, I can see a case for:
I like partitioning off this data to prevent eating others' (other
users', applications' etc) space. If I use symlinks this happens more
easily.
Yes, it's a tradeoff between optimal use of available space and
some protection between different users, groups, applications etc.
eg: On a mailserver /var/spool/mqueue is its own partition (or better
volume if a volume manager is available) to avoid filling up /var
with mails so that the log-messages in /var/log cannot even be
written out !
>=20
> / (ro, including /usr)
> /tmp (mfs)
> /home, including /usr/local, /var and /u0
> swap
>=20
> That's three partitions. If you want to address directories like /u0,
> you can make them symlinks.
>=20
> > However, disk partitions only seem to go up to ad0s1h.
>=20
> Well, in fact they go up to ad0s4h.
>=20
> > When I use the disklabel editor, it lets me devine additional
> > partitions, but names the devive /dev/dsk/X?
>=20
> I've never seen that.
>=20
> > Later mount complains that that does not exist.
>=20
> An example here would be useful.
>=20
> > And no, I do not want to scarifice another slice (BIOS partition) as
> > I need that for Linux.
>=20
> Ah. You can't have your cake and eat it.
But in Linux I can: Up to 23 partitions in the BIOS extended partition?
>=20
> I suppose one way round this "problem" would be to use vinum, which
> allows you to define an arbitrary number of volumes. But I still
> suspect that you're basing your requirements on incorrect assumptions.
I just dislike that the O/S tells me how to partition it and has
low, hard limits.
=20
> Greg
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?NEBBLGLDKLMMGKEMEFMFEEBJCDAA.mathias>