[Gllug] To partition or not to partition

[Alistair Mann]

Alain Williams wrote:
>  Reading the review on el reg about the latest Ubuntu:
>
>  http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/10/11/ubuntu_10_10_review/
>
>
>  one item of discussion is that Ubuntu does not partition the disk. I
>  admit to partitioning, I always have done (except for
>  trivial/throw-away/test systems).
>
>  I do so because: * robustness -- keep / on a quiet partition and it
>  should survive nasty crashes * /boot - similar to /, but also at the
>  start of a disk - prob no longer needed Also: I have every partition
>  in LVM, something that you can't do with /boot Some also think it
>  unwise to have / in LVM * /tmp - busy, so most prone to failure, keep
>  separate * /home - I may want to reinstall from scratch, being
>  separate makes this easier
>
>  Looking at the above, there is a lot to do with robustness.
>  Transaction based file systems are much better than the file systems
>  that I grew up with. Also Ubuntu (ie Debian) ugrading is very good -
>  so my reinstallation worries may be overblown.
>
>  The downside of partitioning is lack of flexibility, ie just how big
>  should /usr be to accommodate the unknown number of programs that a
>  user may install ?

Should users not be self-installing stuff to /home/<user>/bin, etc? I've 
restricted /usr to programs I wish to be available to all local users. 
/usr can then be fairly restricted (20gb seems about right ATM) whereas 
user programs are subject to the /home partition size.

Cheers,
-- 
Alistair Mann
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug