Thomas Taylor wrote:
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.
Well, different people put different things in there. I do software
development on my own machine, and deal with databases, some of which
get large. It's gotten smaller, since my last contract came to an end
:-)
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.
Well, you are describing what my idea is. Put a single partition on the
"other" drive, and let /tmp, /home, /var and whatever else grows/shrinks
with time share the space.
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
Well, you have a passion for partitions that I do not have.
Partitions have existence due to two things
(1) limited addressing ability in the BIOS
(2) desire to run multiple OS on the same disc
Reason (1) is now mostly of historical importance. Reason (2)
is beginning to fade, since discs are getting so cheap one can
simply dedicate a disc to an operating system.
[snip]
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 /.
AFAIK, and I've been doing this since 1984 or thereabouts,
partitions are not dynamically resizable. I want one
partition on one other disc which contains all the variable
sized writable stuff that the OS doesn't need in order to run.
Obviously, there will be a problem if I try to put /etc
over there :-)
HTH,
Tom
Thanks for your kind response.
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!
