Robert Holtzman schreef:
Good point. Indeed also when you want to have multiple simultaneous installations sharing /home, you need it in a separate partition. Anyway, for my debian laptop, I am not doing such fancy things, so putting everything in one big partition made sense to me. @Sthu: As said, boot problems might be a reason for having a spare /boot. However, I managed to get grub2 working, which boots fine from my ext4 root partition.On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:15:22AM +0200, Sjoerd Hardeman wrote:Robert Holtzman schreef:On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 06:03:37PM -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:On 7/28/10 4:40 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:What was the reason for that? The usual plan is to put /home, at least, on a separate partition.The *usual* plan is to put it on a separate drive (but since debian can't judge how smart a user is ~ they put it on the same drive different partition) or if you use network storage, to keep it on the same drive in the same partition. Not everybody runs critical systems or even stores anything in /home. I know on my Debian installs nothing is in /home/username.Dandy *if* you have two drives. How many home users would that be?Also, multiple partitions lose their usefulness for a single-user linux machine. I do not run a mail server which justifies a separate /var, ans since I can fill /usr or /etc just as well as /home, there's no real reason to create multiple partitions. The only exception of course is a separate /boot to avoid boot problems.I disagree. The only time multiple partitions lose their usefulness is in the event of a hard drive failure or massive power surge *and* there is no backup. Otherwise /home on a separate partition allows the installation of another OS without formatting /home. I've done this a number of times and it works beautifully, allowing me to retain a number ofconfiguration scripts.
Sjoerd
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
