> -----Original Message----- > From: dballester@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dballester@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:25 PM > To: fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Fewer partitions are better (Re: Disk Layout/Partitioning > Practices) > > > Hi: > I understand your point of view but I disagree with > you. I'm sysadmin > and I NEED to have system data and user data in three or more physical > partitions ( at least /boot, / and /where_user-app_data_is ). > The reason is > disponibility. I'm totaly agree with LVM and RAM reasons that > you exposed > but having all data in / is dangerous. > Think about a damaged filesystem. In parititioned > systems, if the > damaged filesystem is user data or /boot, I can unmount it > easily, repair > it, and mount it again. If all system except /boot are in /, I need to > shutdown the machine, startup in 'recovery mode', repair and > start machine. > In this machine, for example we can have, internal dns, > dhcp server, > cups ( printing ) and samba server. Using different > partitions, samba user > data can be unmounted, and printig, dns and dhcp will not be > affected. With > only / I can have all people in company stopped for a while. > In the other hand, if the computer is for personal use, > It's logical > to have all in /, no problem :) This makes perfect sense to me.. If one fs/partition gets curruppted, they don't take down the whole disk.. BY far the best explanation I've read. Cool.
