Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:05:49 -0600 (CST) From: Lars Eighner <lars@larseighner.com> To: Daniel Staal <DStaal@usa.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/home vs /home (was: Re: One or Four?) Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1202172316230.11247@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc.pbz> In-Reply-To: <3D08D03C85ACFBB1ABCDC5DA@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> References: <4F3ECF23.5000706@fisglobal.com> <20120217234623.cf7e169c.freebsd@edvax.de> <3D08D03C85ACFBB1ABCDC5DA@mac-pro.magehandbook.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Daniel Staal wrote: > --As of February 17, 2012 11:46:23 PM +0100, Polytropon is alleged to have > said: > >> Well, to be honest, I never liked the "old style" default >> with /home being part of /usr. As I mentioned before, _my_ >> default style for separated partitions include: >> >> / >> swap >> /tmp >> /var >> /usr >> /home >> >> In special cases, add /opt or /scratch as separate partitions >> with intendedly limited sizes. >> >> You can see that all user data is kept independently from >> the rest of the system. It can easily be switched over to >> a separate "home disk" if needed. > > --As for the rest, it is mine. > > I'm in agreement with you on that I like to have /home be a separate > partition, and not under /usr. It seems to me that partition and mount point are being confused to a degree. There is no reason what is mounted at /usr/home cannot be a separate partition as well as if it were mounted at root. There are some good reasons for the user directories (and perhaps some other data) to be on a separate partition - mostly the reasons relate to ease of back up and migration whether planned or emergency. Arguments about where to mount that partition are not so practical, being more in the philosophic and historical realm. Pick one, recognize not everyone will be on the same page and put appropriate links in. > (Of course, my current zfs system has 40 > partitions...) Partly though I recognize that I like it because that's what > I'm used to, and how I learned to set it up originally. (My first unix > experience was with OpenBSD, over 10 years ago now.) > > I've never seen anything listing the main reasons for having /home under /usr > though. I figure there must be a decent reason why. Would anyone care to > enlighten me? What are the perceived advantages? (Particularly if you then > make a symlink to /home.) There may have been a historic reason, but now it is philosophical - trying to keep the system and userland distinction clear. But there are many flaws in the attempted separation. /var for example is the default location for many logs, both system and user, the spools (remember news?), and databases. You really cannot drop /usr into a different system and have an operational result. (I put the home directories, the www directory, databases and spools all on the same physical partition which I mount arbitrarily at /usr/local/data. It isn't exactly plug-n-play, but in tests and emergencies is has proved practical to drop the partition into several linices with a high level of functionally - depending on application versioning being close to in sync.) -- Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/index.html 8800 N IH35 APT 1191 AUSTIN TX 78753-5266
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1202172316230.11247>