From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <140e7ec30701281017g75f5ceaat188b86f3ceee5981@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:17:53 +0900 From: sqweek To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] ~Off Topic: disk layout In-Reply-To: <82c890d00701281002q42980820i92d662df38388ef8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <82c890d00701281002q42980820i92d662df38388ef8@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 091ec3bc-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 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 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 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