[Techtalk] mountpoints

Raquel raquel at thericehouse.net
Sat Aug 4 00:00:55 UTC 2007

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:11:44 -0700
Maria McKinley <maria at shadlen.org> wrote:

> Cynthia Kiser wrote:
> > Quoting Maria McKinley <maria at shadlen.org>:
> > 
> >>I have a question about mountpoints and partitions. I have a
> >disk that  >is currently one partition and is mounted as /lab. I
> >am moving this data  >to a new disk, and I was thinking about
> >dividing it into two partitions,  >but one would be essentially
> >mounting onto the other, >
> >>/dev/hdb1	/lab
> >>/dev/hdb2	/lab/lab_mac
> >>
> >>Is this a bad idea? Is there a better way to do this, so that I
> >preserve  >the current directory structure, but make two
> >partitions on the new  >drive, or am I better off just leaving it
> >one partition?
> > 
> > 
> > What are you trying to achieve by having separate partitions?
> > Old school was 'separate partitions for different functions';
> > new school of thought is moving more to 'a couple of sand boxes
> > (like /boot) and then everything else in one'. Unless you need
> > different file systems or mount options for lab_mac, I don't see
> > the gain.
> > 
> /lab/lab_mac is mounted onto macs regularly via afp, but the rest
> of lab  is only exported via nfs, so I thought it might be better
> to have them  separate. But maybe your right, and it doesn't
> really make a difference.
> ~m

I guess that I'm "old school".  I don't like the idea of one big
partition just for the simple reason that if something fills it up
(like a runaway log) you're "dead".  

Why not:
/dev/hdb1	/lab
/dev/hdb2	/lab_mac

Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year
  --Bernard Berenson

More information about the Techtalk mailing list