Re: [9fans] ~Off Topic: disk layout

[sqweek <sqweek@gmail.com>]

 I'm not really sure about original motivations, to be honest.
Personally, I have a seperate partition for /boot to make sure the
kernel stays beneath cylinder 1024 (when I started using linux this
was a common BIOS/bootloader limitation, so /boot became something of
a habit).
 Having /home on a seperate partition is comforting, at the very least
- in a worst case scenario where I totally fuck up my system I can
just wipe the /boot /usr /var / /tmp partitions and not worry about
losing anything important.
 /usr /var and /tmp are kind of an extension of the partitioning
scheme, and in retrospect pretty much useless. It just forces me to
use a bit of discipline about how much crap I keep around (I've run
out of space on /var a couple of times).

PS. If you're going to top post while quoting a bottom posted reply
can you at least snip the irrelevant junk?

On 1/29/07, Gabriel Diaz <gabidiaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> it was usual in the unix time (that is, when there was no plan9) to
> have those bloated disk layouts that lunix suggests? or just was
> common to have a couple of disks instead of one?
>
> On 1/28/07, sqweek <sqweek@gmail.com> wrote:
> > PRI1  0001-8633 Extended
> > PRI2  8634-8756 Linux swap
> > LOG5 0001-0032 Linux /boot
> > LOG6 0033-2465 Linux /home
> > LOG7 2466-4333 Linux /usr
> > LOG8 4334-4956 Linux /var
> > LOG9 4957-5081 Linux /
> > LOG10 5082-5144 Linux /tmp