[Techtalk] mountpoints

[Maria McKinley]

Raquel wrote:
> 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
> 

I'm thinking this is the way I am going to go. Now that you mention it, 
I can't see any really compelling reason why I need to preserve the 
current directory structure. I'll have to adjust my backup strategy, but 
that doesn't seem like that big a deal.

~m