Location of some executables

Gordan Bobic gordan.bobic at gmail.com
Wed May 11 06:40:48 EDT 2011

On 05/11/2011 09:07 AM, briaeros007 wrote:
> Hello,
> To add fuel to the fire.
> /usr can be farily sized (mine do 7.6 Go, /bin and /sbin do 22M...).
> you can want to have a little "/" partition  for different reason :
> - quota things (you doesn't want your / full only because you've
> install a soft which copy 5 Go on /usr/share

You have a quota in / ??

> - you can choose to have your / read only (system maintenance) and
> your /usr read write (add/modification of software)

So following that logic, if you then also separate out /var, you have a 
situation where your package DB is listing packages on multiple 
different partitions. That just strikes me as a bad idea.

Apps are generally small. Data is generally big. I am all for putting 
data onto separate volumes, but when the entire OS install + apps is 
smaller than the amount of RAM on mid-range graphics card, I don't 
really see the gain of splitting it up in the general case.

> - boot pxe for the system (one nfs share for the core system, and
> other for applications which are loaded when the system initialize
> itself).
> - etc...

Sounds like an administrative nightmare. What commonly available package 
management system will cope with that?

> /bin and /sbin are here for a reason : to provide a lightweigth
> environnement who can be used to manage the server, even if other
> partitions can't be mounted.
> I think It's a best practice to separate things on a server. if
> something bad happen, the other things aren't impacted.

The chances are that you're not going to get very far in fixing things 
without the things in /usr/bin and /usr/sbin.

> the "good way" of doing this sort of choice in an , is to use a PREFIX
> variable with configure and let the user change it if they want.
> In this way, if the user want to create an user "zfs" which wil manage
> all binaries and lib of zfs in it's home: it's easy and possible.
> And nobody to say "my way of doing things is better than yours".

Perhaps people who believe in micro-management on this level can also 
roll their own package with their own specific patches for their own 
custom LFS build?

> I don't even understand why some must justify multiples times
> 1°) best practice (this is a best practice! Just take any true (plain
> old?) linux installer, and you will see a choice like  "server  : /,
> /usr, /home, /var, /tmp are separated).

I think it's time to move from 1980s to the 21st century. This was 
relevant when disks were small and expensive. RHEL6 has dropped support 
for custom partitioning in text installers - you have to run the GUI 
installer to do custom, manual partitioning. The only way to do it 
without the GUI is to kickstart it. Don't know about other distros, but 
I'd be amazed if any desktop distro released in the last decade defaults 
to a separate /usr.

> 2°) they're way of manage their systems.

If it's your way to manage the system, you can build your own packages 
for your way of managing the system.

And "that's how I do things" doesn't equal "this is the best way to do it".


More information about the zfs-discuss mailing list