Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:21:05 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: disklabel differences FreeBSD, DragonFly Message-ID: <20060727202105.GA14724@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> In-Reply-To: <17609.1474.618423.970137@bhuda.mired.org> References: <20060727063936.GA1246@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> <20060727122159.GB4217@britannica.bec.de> <20060727134948.GA3755@energistic.com> <20060727180412.GB48057@megan.kiwi-computer.com> <17609.1474.618423.970137@bhuda.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 02:28:18PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote: > In <20060727180412.GB48057@megan.kiwi-computer.com>, Rick C. Petty <rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com> typed: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 09:49:48AM -0400, Steve Ames wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 02:21:59PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > > DragonFly disklabels allow 16 entries by default, FreeBSD still limits > > > > it to 8. That's why you can't read it directly. > > > Are there plans to bump the default up from 8? I'm honestly torn on > > > this topic whenever I install a new system. On the one hand I like > > > having a lot of discrete mountpoints to control potential usage. On > > > the other hand with drive space being so inexpensive I sometimes > > > wonder if I need to bother and can get away with very few mountpoints. > > I would think that cheap disk space would mean larger disks which implies > > more mountpoints ??? > > Nope. One of the historical uses of partitions was to act as firewalls > between subsystems, so that subsystem A running out of space didn't > cause subsystem B to die for lack of space. This had the downside of > making it more likely that one of the two would run out of space > because the excess space from another subsystem could only be used by > it. With cheap disk space, you overallocate by enough to give you > plenty of warning before you have to deal with the issue. You can > safely share that space, and doing so means you have to "deal with the > issue" less often. > > These days, the only technical reason I know of for having separate > mountpoints is because you want to run commands that work on > filesystems on the two parts with different arguments or under > different conditions. Well I still prefer to "design" my filesystems no matter how big disks are. So I have better control of what needs backup using dump and when I need to restore parts of my disk its also quicker and more reliable to restore a subtree. Also I'd gues that its still valid that less file movement in root filesystem increases robustness if you have a power outage. Same true for other important filesystems. Also it makes it easier to upgrade a system, since you only nail / and /usr, if the rest is in other filesystems. Also its easier to newfs "/" and "/usr", if "/var", "/usr/local" and "/usr/X11R6", "/home", ... are on differnet filesystems. Also you can increase system performance by choosing bigger block and frag size in filesystems with bigger files on average. If you have a news filesystem you perhaps want to finetune settings of filesystem to have more inodes available ... You see, I think there is still demand for using many filesystems if you are open minded for having the best support in every "shitty" situation ;-) Andreas /// -- Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 6 Need a magic printfilter today ? -> http://www.apsfilter.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060727202105.GA14724>