On 08/31/2012 06:55 PM, Riku Voipio wrote: > How is that different from having a botched / or /boot ? Why do you > think having a separate /usr will make / less prone to HD crashes? > You have / on RAID5 while /usr isn't? >
Typically, I have / on 2 small RAID1 partitions making the array on the first 2 HDD (1 or 2 gigs), and /usr on a LVM on a much, much larger RAID array (I use mostly software RAID1 and RAID10, but in some cases, much bigger hardware RAID5). So yes, that's my usual server setup. Also, / is a partition on which almost nothing is read or written, while the others (eg: /usr, /var, /tmp, swap) are a lot more I/O intensive. Which means that / is less prone to failure. Often, the 2nd RAID array gets degraded, but / isn't. So it does make a lot of sense to setup things this way, and yes, / is less prone to HD crashes this way (I'm talking from 10 years of experience running about 100 servers this way, so it's not just theory, it's very practical experience). > Anyways maintaining a good recovery CD / USB is more worthwile than > keeping supporting a hard drive partitioning scheme that doesn't really > add value for users anymore. > It does add value, as per above. I'll keep in mind Marco's suggestion of grml-rescueboot which I didn't know and try in the next following days, it looks cool! Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5040d0c6.4040...@debian.org
