Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.nacamar.de!news-xfer.cybernet.dk!news.kolumbus.fi!news.funet.fi!news.cs.hut.fi!news.clinet.fi!not-for-mail From: mickey@cantina.clinet.fi (Mika Ruohotie) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: More partitions than default devices? Date: 24 Apr 1997 14:33:41 +0300 Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland Lines: 42 Message-ID: <5jngel$kc4$1@cantina.clinet.fi> References: <5jap4r$32@news.ox.ac.uk> <335C09FE.10@OntheNet.com.au> <5ji7mi$dbj@news.ox.ac.uk> <335f1529.2917713@news.csus.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cantina.clinet.fi NNTP-Posting-User: mickey Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:39671 stonebrother <stonebrother@sduteam.com> wrote: >Can someone explain it to me, why we want to partition to a, b, c, d, >e, f, g, h, if we have four partition. >Whats the pros for slicing it into so many pieces =) let's say i have the following partitions: (well, i do, almost) beasty-boys% df -k Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/sd0a 34895 14100 18004 44% / /dev/sd0s1e 381487 330946 20023 94% /usr /dev/sd0s1f 254319 133193 100781 57% /home /dev/sd0s1g 190735 5459 170018 3% /var /dev/sd0s1h 77935 3041 68660 4% /var/mail /dev/sd0s2e 127151 1230 115749 1% /tmp /dev/sd0s2f 59471 15777 38937 29% /www /dev/sd0s2g 471665 320288 80820 39% /ftp1 /dev/sd0s2h 410302 410302 0 110% /customers procfs 4 4 0 100% /proc /dev/wcd0c 626984 626984 0 100% /cdrom beasty-boys% if i'm email flooded, i can still write logs to /var/log (in a serious system this should be it's own filesystem as well), if customers fill up their space, www gets filled, tmp gets filled, ftp clients fills it's space, or any other single filesystem gets filled, all the others work and my machine operates as if nothing would have happened. the different partition makes the machine "safer". sure, i can get the same normal functionality by just having all in one, but when something fills up the space, whole machine is in trouble. and i personally like to separate things on their own filesystems as wide as i can, ofcourse not overdoing it. also i can put different inode counts for those filesystems depending how many of those i need in each. and i can specify different mountings (some are async,noatime but not all) and so on. so it's much more flexible too. and if there's more than one physical disk, it's always worth to have equal amount of swap on each. (i assume equal amount would be the best) mickey