Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:23:21 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Devin Teske <devin.teske@fisglobal.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: One or Four? Message-ID: <20120218002321.55c738ad.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <021101ccedc9$89445cf0$9bcd16d0$@fisglobal.com> References: <4F3ECF23.5000706@fisglobal.com> <20120217234623.cf7e169c.freebsd@edvax.de> <20120217225329.GB30014@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <021101ccedc9$89445cf0$9bcd16d0$@fisglobal.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:11:52 -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> > questions@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Jerry McAllister
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 2:53 PM
> > To: Polytropon
> > Cc: david.robison@fisglobal.com; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> > Subject: Re: One or Four?
> >
> > >
> > > > Let the majority decide which layout is preferred for the default.
> > >
> > > Why not add a selection to the installer, something like
> > > this:
> > >
> > > Partition scheme
> > > ----------------
> > >
> > > [ ] all in one + swap
> > > Create one partition containing all subtrees
> > > plus one swap partition.
> > >
> > > [ ] separate partitioning + swap
> > > Create /, /var, /tmp and /usr (including home)
> > > partitions plus one swap partition.
> > >
> > > [ ] user-defined
> > > Make your own partitioning selection manually.
> > >
> > > Of course, the default SIZES for second choice should be
> > > reasonable.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. Yes. This is the way to go.
Let me change the caption of the second choice to this:
[ ] traditionally separated partitioning + swap
Because it's the installer's tradition to put /home into /usr.
> I'd agree, but I'd like to envision a modular approach where multiple schemes
> can be maintained.
>
> E.g. a menu containing...
>
> "Scheme 1: / + swap + /tmp"
> "Scheme 2: / + swap + /tmp + /var"
> "Scheme 3: / + swap + /tmp + /var + /usr"
> "Scheme 4: / + swap + /tmp + /var + /usr + /home"
I'm missing scheme 5 with /opt. :-)
According to combinatoric possibilities, / + swap + /tmp + /usr
is also missing. It would be no good idea (in my opinion) to
present the user a list of _all_ possible combinations just in
case he would like to have one of them. My idea to use three
options ("minimal", "traditional", user-defined) would be fully
sufficient, as all those who have no idea what they do would
use the first choice, those who intendedly want the traditional
approach would use the second choice, and all those not wanting
one of those would be clever enough to deal with manually
defining their own scheme.
> I'm actually thinking that "not having a separate /tmp" is:
>
> a. A security issue
>
> /tmp is by-default out-of-the-box world-writable (perms 1777). Making this
> world-writable bucket part of "/" seems silly both for Desktops and Servers
> alike.
Fully agree. I pointed out why this can be dangerous. Having
/tmp in memory is good (and secure!) if it's possible (note:
enough RAM needed), but not an option on systems low on RAM.
This kind of possible fine tuning partition-wise (soft updates,
journaling, quota, dump, ro, noexec, noatime etc.) doesn't
typically take place on average desktops, but there may be
cases where you need to do that.
> b. A nuisance
>
> As "Da Rock" points out, ... recovering your system from a
> file-system-full-event when using "single-/" is just as difficult regardless of
> Desktop versus Server. Having "/tmp" alleviates the difficulty.
I don't think the separation "desktop vs. server" serves well
here. It's not about what kind of machine (or form factor) is
used, but the actual _employment_ of the machine, the intended
way of using it is. Note that there are also mixed forms, e. g.
a home desktop that provides some server functionalities. That's
why I think making a selection for partitioning schemes should
take SCHEMES into mind, not "server or desktop".
> c. A performance issue
>
> I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the physical performance limitations of
> rotating disks with respect to physical location of partitions on the spindle.
> Granted, seek times are light years beyond what they used to be, but allocating
> smaller "swap" and "tmp" partitions close to the center of the spindle is a
> performance-enhancing setup just as much as it is for protecting against
> file-system-full problems (security events included).
As I said, sometimes you need to squeeze every bit of performance
out of a machine. Fiddling with the location of certain functional
pieces of the OS _on the disk_ can be a big help here.
> I'd argue that there should never be a single-"/" unless you are prepared to
> deal with a truly 100%-full filesystem problem (especially considering that
> Desktop users whom select the default-everything are often not skilled enough to
> deal with that situation). If someone truly wants a single "/" and nothing else,
> there's manual partitioning (which should prove pretty easy in the event that
> you're only creating one partition and nothing else).
Yes, that's also possible, but I think having it as a option
to be checked is what especially novice users would want. They
would select the first (default) choice anyway without reading,
so it might be a chance to learn. :-)
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120218002321.55c738ad.freebsd>