On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:02:06AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 02:59 -0400, Brad Sawatzky wrote: > > If you're really stuck (ie. remote access to your box and you suspect fs > > damage), get as close to single-user as you can (shutdown what you can > > without hosing your connection), remount ro and give it a shot. (Having > > /var and /home on separate partitions would help minimize problems.) > > Not recommended though. > > Having /var and /home on separate partitions is not > advisable/recommended?
His sentence "Not recommended though" did not refer to the sentence on parentheses, but the sentence before that outside parentheses. > > Is that what you are saying, the "/" and "/var" and "/home" all be on > one filesystem? If that is the case, why not "/tmp" and "/usr" and > "/usr/local", huh? > > I have to disagree with you. > > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > /dev/sda2 975136 127620 847516 14% / > tmpfs 1038080 0 1038080 0% /dev/shm > /dev/sda1 135468 18781 115242 15% /boot > /dev/sda7 975104 1456 973648 1% /tmp > /dev/sda6 5845408 1702848 4142560 30% /usr > /dev/sda5 3893504 1682560 2210944 44% /var > /dev/mapper/datavg-homeLV > 31441920 13232872 18209048 43% /home > tmpfs 10240 736 9504 8% /dev > /dev/mapper/datavg-usr.localLV > 22787256 2645304 20101952 12% /usr/local > > That right there is a typical installation. I am guessing you have never > actually supported large numbers of users. This particular machine hosts > 15 domains and plus their sub-domains. If anything, he's quilty of not having a team of readers looking for ambiguity in his written words. But how many of us do that, except maybe professional writers? -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
