[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
--
Raquel
============================================================
Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year
ago.
--Bernard Berenson
More information about the Techtalk
mailing list