On 06/08/2015 06:29 PM, Peter wrote:
> On 06/09/2015 12:19 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 6/8/2015 5:08 PM, g wrote:
>>> ie, partition for boot, partition for swap, partition for /, partition
>>> home, partition for usr, partition for var, partition for home2,
>>> partition for what ever.
>>
>>
>> that model is not generally recommended anymore, at least not putting
>> /usr on its own partition, there's just too many issues with that
>> nowdays. I don't like putting /var in its own partition either as its
>> all too intertwined with root. the problem with lots of little
>> partitions is your freespace gets fragmented.
>>
>> /home in a dedicated partition, sure.
>> /var/lib/${DATABASE_OR_WEB_SERVER}, ditto...
>
> The real issue is that you cannot put /usr on a dedicated partition
> anymore as of CentOS 7. This is because /bin, /lib and /lib64 are
> symbolic linked in the /usr equivalents now. The (previous) purposes of
> having a separate /bin and /lib was so that programs and libs required
> at boot time could be run before the rest of the fs was mounted up if
> /usr were on a separate partition. Now they've been consolidated and
> symlinked so if you put /usr on a separate partition then the system
> won't be able to access critical apps during boot.
>
> You can thank Fedora for making that rather pointless change and
> breaking that capability.
>
>
> Peter
Just curious what happens in this case. Do the apps wait and/or retry
until /usr is mounted or does the boot fail?
--
--------------------------------------------
MzK
"We can all sleep easy at night knowing that
somewhere at any given time,
the Foo Fighters are out there fighting Foo."
-- David Letterman