Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:50:03 +0200 From: Manolis Kiagias <sonicy@otenet.gr> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: Roger <rnodal@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Remote re-installation of current FreeBSD system. Message-ID: <4AFE612B.6060501@otenet.gr> In-Reply-To: <20091114083958.74482be3.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <9d972bed0911131228k36f9515ak361d82d766c24749@mail.gmail.com> <20091114083958.74482be3.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Polytropon wrote: > A little sidenote: > > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:28:04 -0500, Roger <rnodal@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The reason for wanting to re-install is because I only have on big >> slice that covers the >> entire harddrive and I don't want that. Primarily I would like to have >> /usr/local >> in a separate slice. >> > > In most cases, you set up one slice covering the whole disk, > and then partition it, giving functional parts an own > partition, such as /, /var, /tmp, /usr (including or intendedly > excluding /usr/local) and /home. Those are partitions, not > slices. > > As far as I know, there's no advantage in adding additional slices > to that concept. > > A slice is a "DOS primary partition", while a partition is > just a subdivision (i. e. an own file system) inside a slice. > > > It seems however that some dedicated servers are setup using a single slice and a single partition, i.e. having /usr /var and /tmp as subdirectories in / instead of separate filesystems. I was once administering a server setup in this way - the hosting company would only perform this kind of install (they probably had a ready image or dump and would not change it). If the OP cares to share his /etc/fstab, it will become obvious if this is the case. If there are already separate partitions inside the slice, I'd agree there is no compelling reason to move to a multiple slice system.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4AFE612B.6060501>