Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:08:38 +0800 From: "Mathias Körber" <mathias@koerber.org> To: "Greg Lehey" <grog@lemis.com>, "Mathias Körber" <mathias@koerber.org> Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: More partitions on a single slice? Message-ID: <NEBBLGLDKLMMGKEMEFMFIEBKCDAA.mathias@koerber.org> In-Reply-To: <20001112172152.M802@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm attaching a draft of the corresponding text from the coming fourth > edition of "The Complete FreeBSD". This isn't set in stone, and > detailed comments are welcome. thx, I'll have a look. > The /home *hierarchy is* for users. It doesn't have to be the same as yes, but symlinking /usr/local to /home/local is ugly. It encroaches on the diskspace set aside for users own (personal) files. > BTW, note that /usr is *not* for users. That shows fairly clearly how > things have changed over the years. Yeah, I remember SVR2 :-) > > I like partitioning off this data to prevent eating others' (other > > users', applications' etc) space. If I use symlinks this happens = more > > easily. >=20 > That's what quotas are for. Quotas apply on a per user basis, not on a per-application basis. If I have several users working on the same application etc, I'd have to restrict them separately for this (and if the app lived on the same FS as eg /home, then I'd simultaneously restrict them in their /home, as quotas are only as granular as your filesystem). > Agreed, servers are a special case (and yes, I've seen laptop based > servers :-) In any such case, you need to consider exactly what you're > doing, based on actual and expected load amongst other things. But why then have this arbitrary restrictions in the first place? mathias 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?NEBBLGLDKLMMGKEMEFMFIEBKCDAA.mathias>