Location of some executables
skorgu at gmail.com
Wed May 11 10:33:54 EDT 2011
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:18, Gordan Bobic <gordan.bobic at gmail.com> wrote:
> In all other cases, I still haven't heard an argument for why a 100MB root
> wouldn't be corrupted if the 5GB /usr is or vice versa.
Different SAN backings on annoying-to-replicate configuration data in
(say /etc) than on just-reinstall data (/usr). Not so much for
increased availability but for ease of returning to service after the
inevitable SAN failure.
If I were starting from greenfield I wouldn't build like that but I
know of many sites that manage things just this way. Old habits die
hard and it can certainly get pathological; I know of one site that
had such tightly provisioned storage that updating the kernel made
disk alarms go off because now there were two kernel images on /boot.
Seems to me the bottom line is how difficult it is to support a
no-/usr install of zfs. If it's "just" a matter of modifying some
configure options why not have the packages support the widest variety
of possibilities? If it's more involved and takes work away from
other, more important tasks then it seems safe to say that it's just
not supported by the binaries and if you need that feature you're on
More information about the zfs-discuss