On Wednesday 12 October 2005 13:27, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Tim wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 22:45 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >>I've been considering how one could put /tmp and /home on another
> >>disc from that containing /etc and other areas necessary for
> >>boot.
> >>
> >>I've thought about possibly adding a disc, and putting a file system
> >>on it. Then emptying out /home, and mounting the new file
> >>system to /home. On the new file system, I'd also have a directory
> >>which would be, after the mount, /home/tmp. Then make /tmp be a
> >>soft link to this directory.
> >>
> >>Would this work? Or is there some dependency on /tmp actually being
> >>present before auto mounts take place?
> >
> > With the distros I've seen, /tmp is something that can be mounted on a
> > partition. Sometimes that's even a recommendation! So, as far as I can
> > see, /tmp doesn't have to be around until /etc/fstab has been paid
> > attention to.
> >
> > On top of that, /home isn't used until well after you've booted up. So
> > I'd expect any links inside it, like you've suggested, ought to be fine.
> > Though I can't see why you want it inside /home.
>
> Well, I don't especially. And I'm open to suggestions.
> My point is to let the variable-sized stuff which can
> grow beyond all bounds due to defects in software or
> boo-boos by the operator (read: me) not contaminate the
> system.
>
> All significant software has defects. A file system is
> a significant piece of software. I don't want to push
> the limits on the FS where the OS is contained. I don't
> want an unbootable system. I want one partition on a
> separate disc to contain that stuff. But I see that /home
> and /tmp (and /var to a lesser extent, though /var/spool
> is pretty much vulnerable) both need mount points.
Hi Mike:
/home rarely gets really big, unless of course you subscribe to every mailing
list around and don't archive the messages. Mostly it contains settings and
configuration data for the programs.
A directory created under / (root partition) is by default variable in size.
Since it sounds like you are using two drives, why not put /home and /temp
(explanation follows) on the second drive and they can take whatever space
they need there.
On my own systems, I have two or three drives. The second and third drive(s)
has partitions for /home, /temp, /source, /downloads and any other
directories I need at the moment. This has the advantage of being able to
re-format the first drive if I want to make major changes or upgrades, yet
also keeps my personal settings/configurations safe. /source is used for
source code during programming over several sessions and for storage
(/source/final) of completed programs. And of course /downloads is (I hope)
self explanitory.
I have learned (the hard way, ugh) to back up the second/third drive at least
once a week (HINT!!!).
>
> I don't want two, three, five, you count'em partitions
> on the disc, because then I'd have to know in advance how
> much to allocate to each, and each would always be larger
> than it would have to be. I'd rather have one partition,
> and let the various pieces dynamically get resized as
> needed.
Again, only if you make then separate partitions, not directories under /.
>
> But then I have a mounting problem. (I suppose the politically
> correct term would be challenge.) I'd rather have /home/tmp
> than /tmp/home :-)
>
> But loopback mounting may be the exact ticket to solve
> that. I'm still thinkin'.
>
> Live'n'learn!
>
> Mike
> --
> p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> This message made from 100% recycled bits.
> You have found the bank of Larn.
> I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
> I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
HTH,
Tom
--
Tom Taylor
Linux user #263467
Federal Way, WA
Iraq war: 1,962 US soldiers dead and counting
