On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:24:10AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
A smaller / that is written to less often is less susceptible to
errors.
If you don't allocate enough space for / up front, you can move /usr and
/opt to separate filesystems later. /opt can be completely
unpredictable in space usage, due to vendor RPMs dumping stuff in /opt
(see Dell's OMSA, that puts everything, including logs, under /opt).
So, LVM?
I personally don't use a separate /usr on desktops, only on
servers. On
my servers, /usr is mounted read-only, as an extra protection against
accidental (or even intentional) screw-ups. It also means that I don't
waste I/O cycles on updating atimes on often-used binaries and libraries
(which of course could also be done with noatime).
mount --bind /usr /usr
mount -o ro,remount /usr
I've seen some boot-from-flash setups with /usr on a hard drive.
The rational thing there is for the flash to be /boot, not /.
Basically, if Fedora is going to follow the FHS at all, bugs like
626007
should be fixed, not ignored because somebody doesn't like a separate
/usr.
I don't think we gain anything from following the FHS on this point
other than the ability to have /usr as a separate partition, and think
that's a pretty circular argument.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org