 | | | partitioning scheme | partitioning scheme 2007-11-05 - By Mad Unix
Back
Hi Steve
can you post your last recommendaton layout of partioning scheme....
On 11/5/07, Steve Phillips <steve@(protected)> wrote:
>
> Mad Unix wrote:
> > What you think about this?
> >
> > /boot ---> local disk
>
> Questionable - see below, but hey - people seem to love partitioning
> things.
>
> > / ----> localdisk
> > swap -- ---> localdisk
> >
> > /tmp -- --> SAN
>
> I'd keep that local, you have enough space - either mount it as a tmpfs
> system (ala solaris) or just make it part of the root FS, optimally, if
> you are going for security, make it a seperate partition (tmpfs or local
> disk) and mount it with the nonexec flags set as well.
>
> (note: tmpfs is basically a ramdisk like filesystem that is virtual and
> gets wipes at reboot)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMPFS
>
> > /usr -- ---> SAN
>
> this is a _really bad_ idea.
>
> A lot of the time, you can get yourself in trouble if you are not
> exceptionally careful about what is called at boot, and these days a lot
> of stuff sits off /usr and you could accidentally isolate something that
> needs to be run to allow - say, the SAN to come online.
>
> Back in the day, people used to partition stuff lots simply because
> there was no such thing as a large hard drive (ok, this is not 100%
> correct, but pretty close) - a lot of people claimed it was for data
> retention incase of a system/drive crash, but seriously, how many people
> that claim this do you know that have HAD a headcrash on a drive and
> then tried to reconstruct data from the other segments of the drive -
> generally when a drive crashes it will take out pretty much all the of
> device rendering it ALL unusable. (and again, yes, at times you DO try
> to reconstruct the data but it is NOT a common event and you can cause
> more problems than you solve with this file system fragmentation that
> everyone seems dead keen on)
>
> Your best protection is NOT more partitions it is things like RAID (i'd
> mirror those two local disks) and good backups with a _tested_ restore
> process.
>
>
> > /home -- --> SAN
>
> This seems ok
>
> > /opt -- --> SAN
>
> Yup
>
> > /var -- ----> SAN
>
> I'd tend to keep this local as well - in particular, as the logs and
> stuff tend to go there as well as other ancillary things (/var/run and
> /var/tmp) that are used to bring the system up, it means that in event
> of SAN failure you can still actually boot the system and have it semi
> workable.
>
> > /u01 -- --> SAN
>
> Yup.
>
> --
> Steve
> () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
>
> --
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@(protected)?subject=unsubscribe
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
--
madunix
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@(protected)?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
|
|
|