From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 24 17:23:07 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5936C1065687 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:23:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAA98FC22 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:23:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from r55.edvax.de (port-92-195-21-147.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.21.147]) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12DB50B7F; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:23:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r55.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r55.edvax.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id m7OHN3K3001577; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:23:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:23:03 +0200 From: Polytropon To: Matthew Seaman Message-Id: <20080824192303.73c8e63b.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <48B10B51.9030504@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20080824012442.GA46150@thought.org> <48B10B51.9030504@infracaninophile.co.uk> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Gary Kline , FreeBSD Mailing List Subject: Re: Why /usr/local/etc??? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:23:07 -0000 You gave a very good explaination with many background information; there's just something I'd like to add. On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:18:41 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > However there is no overriding reason to rearrange the filesystems. > Oh, there are arguments about "does the root partition still need to be > kept separate" (personally, I'd say no it doesn't: one big partition to > hold it all is much simpler to administer, but opinions differ) but > nothing that makes change imperative. The two main layout concepts "all in one" and "everything separate" have their advantages and disadvantages. As you mentioned, having everything within one partition saves you from calculating disk space needed vs. disk space available (Oops, /usr is full!). But separate partitions allow you to backup data partition-wise onto media that's big enough (usually tape), so you can dump everything 1:1 and restore it 1:1 - just as you left it. > I'd see filesystems divided into three classes depending on > content: generic -- user home directories, web content, databases, system > sources, the ports tree etc. that you'ld want to share or be able to > migrate across all instances; arch specific -- kernel, binaries, shlibs, > /usr/obj, binary package collections which are tied to the CPU architecture > and the OS version and finally instance specific -- configuration data (ie > /etc, /usr/local/etc), log files, temporary and swap spaces. It's not > excessively difficult to make this sort of split with existing layouts, > but it is more complicated than it needs to be. Maybe you're interested in reading this discussion: http://www.osnews.com/comments/20207 It mostly deals with Linux file system layout, but go see PC-BSD and the concepts they introduced with their PBI packages. -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...