/usr/home re ports - BSD

This is a discussion on /usr/home re ports - BSD ; Ok this may have been discussed b4 someplace but i can't see it. I would agree that from the pov of compiling large ports (office etc) having a large partition is desirable and that is why home is sometimes/often /usr/home ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: /usr/home re ports

  1. /usr/home re ports

    Ok this may have been discussed b4 someplace but i can't see it.

    I would agree that from the pov of compiling large ports (office etc)
    having a large partition is desirable and that is why home is
    sometimes/often /usr/home rather than just /home BUT what if I want home
    encrypted? Will /usr stand encryption? Is nothing there ever called during
    boot process before encryption kicks in? I doubt it though I haven't tried
    it either. Will ports stand being moved to /home and ports compile
    correctly from there? pro's cons anyone? Maybe I should just make sure
    /usr or / is 10 to 20 GB and leave it where it is. I do prefer /home on
    its own partition though.

    Thanks for any advice.


    --
    ___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
    / _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
    / // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
    /____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/


  2. Re: /usr/home re ports

    Dead Paul wrote:

    > Ok this may have been discussed b4 someplace but i can't see it.
    >
    > I would agree that from the pov of compiling large ports (office etc)
    > having a large partition is desirable and that is why home is
    > sometimes/often /usr/home rather than just /home BUT what if I want home
    > encrypted? Will /usr stand encryption? Is nothing there ever called during
    > boot process before encryption kicks in? I doubt it though I haven't tried
    > it either. Will ports stand being moved to /home and ports compile
    > correctly from there? pro's cons anyone? Maybe I should just make sure
    > /usr or / is 10 to 20 GB and leave it where it is. I do prefer /home on
    > its own partition though.
    >
    > Thanks for any advice.
    >
    >


    There is no point to moving /usr/ports to your home folder. I'd leave it
    alone. Yes - most things don't need huge amount of space, but if you ever
    want to build openoffice.org you'll need it. Just make /usr large enough to
    do what you need it to do.

    I'm assuming you're talking about encrypting your home folder with gdbe or
    geli. If I were going to do this I'd make /home its own partition. I prefer
    it this way anyway from a backup and virus scan perspective.

    No system start up stuff needs anything from /home. Userland applications do
    store their configs in user directories. Since the mounting and crypto
    stuff happens at system boot, before moving into userland, it will be
    transparent to th euser by the time you need to login, start an app, or
    whatever.

    So, me - I'd leave /usr/ports alone and make /home it's own partition. Just
    my $.02 :-)

    -Jason


  3. Re: /usr/home re ports

    On 2007-10-30, Dead Paul wrote:
    > Ok this may have been discussed b4 someplace but i can't see it.
    >
    > I would agree that from the pov of compiling large ports (office etc)
    > having a large partition is desirable and that is why home is
    > sometimes/often /usr/home rather than just /home BUT what if I want home
    > encrypted? Will /usr stand encryption? Is nothing there ever called during


    If you want home encrypted, why not make /home a separate partition. It does
    not have to link to /usr. Also very useful for back ups (via dump).
    Generally, /usr is much easier to rebuild from older backups than the data in
    /home.

    > boot process before encryption kicks in? I doubt it though I haven't tried
    > it either. Will ports stand being moved to /home and ports compile
    > correctly from there? pro's cons anyone? Maybe I should just make sure
    > /usr or / is 10 to 20 GB and leave it where it is. I do prefer /home on
    > its own partition though.


    Once again, why not have a separate partition for /usr/ports ? If it looks
    like it is starting to get full, you can purge /usr/ports/distfiles. If you
    haven't been religious about make clean after a make install, you can make
    more space by doing a make clean on the /usr/ports directory. This will take
    a lot of time, but will assure no cruft. Having /usr/ports as a separate
    partition can make for a huge savings in back up media. There is no need
    that I can see for backing up /usr/ports. Yet this particular directory tree
    can grow to be quite large.

    >
    > Thanks for any advice.
    >
    >


    Cheers

    JE

  4. Re: /usr/home re ports

    On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:20:51 -0500, JE wrote:

    > On 2007-10-30, Dead Paul wrote:
    >> Ok this may have been discussed b4 someplace but i can't see it.
    >>
    >> I would agree that from the pov of compiling large ports (office etc)
    >> having a large partition is desirable and that is why home is
    >> sometimes/often /usr/home rather than just /home BUT what if I want home
    >> encrypted? Will /usr stand encryption? Is nothing there ever called during

    >
    > If you want home encrypted, why not make /home a separate partition. It does
    > not have to link to /usr.


    Yes, that is what I do currently.

    > Also very useful for back ups (via dump).
    > Generally, /usr is much easier to rebuild from older backups than the data in
    > /home.


    I never back up binaries. Only /home and /etc. I'm only using bsd at home.
    I haven't lost a system in nearly 10 years.

    >> boot process before encryption kicks in? I doubt it though I haven't tried
    >> it either. Will ports stand being moved to /home and ports compile
    >> correctly from there? pro's cons anyone? Maybe I should just make sure
    >> /usr or / is 10 to 20 GB and leave it where it is. I do prefer /home on
    >> its own partition though.

    >
    > Once again, why not have a separate partition for /usr/ports ?


    That's interesting.

    > If it looks
    > like it is starting to get full, you can purge /usr/ports/distfiles. If you
    > haven't been religious about make clean after a make install, you can make
    > more space by doing a make clean on the /usr/ports directory.


    Yes, true but I always clean it out.

    > This will take
    > a lot of time, but will assure no cruft. Having /usr/ports as a separate
    > partition can make for a huge savings in back up media. There is no need
    > that I can see for backing up /usr/ports. Yet this particular directory tree
    > can grow to be quite large.


    Yes, that's right. Thanks, I may stick ports on its own partition but it
    will always seem such a waste of space once ports are compiled and
    installed.

    tnx.

    --
    ___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
    / _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
    / // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
    /____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/


  5. Re: /usr/home re ports

    On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:01:01 +0000, Jason Bourne wrote:

    > Dead Paul wrote:
    >
    >> Ok this may have been discussed b4 someplace but i can't see it.
    >>
    >> I would agree that from the pov of compiling large ports (office etc)
    >> having a large partition is desirable and that is why home is
    >> sometimes/often /usr/home rather than just /home BUT what if I want home
    >> encrypted? Will /usr stand encryption? Is nothing there ever called during
    >> boot process before encryption kicks in? I doubt it though I haven't tried
    >> it either. Will ports stand being moved to /home and ports compile
    >> correctly from there? pro's cons anyone? Maybe I should just make sure
    >> /usr or / is 10 to 20 GB and leave it where it is. I do prefer /home on
    >> its own partition though.
    >>
    >> Thanks for any advice.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > There is no point to moving /usr/ports to your home folder. I'd leave it
    > alone. Yes - most things don't need huge amount of space, but if you ever
    > want to build openoffice.org you'll need it. Just make /usr large enough to
    > do what you need it to do.


    That was my initial thought also.

    > I'm assuming you're talking about encrypting your home folder with gdbe or
    > geli. If I were going to do this I'd make /home its own partition. I prefer
    > it this way anyway from a backup and virus scan perspective.


    Yes, I prefer it that way also.

    > No system start up stuff needs anything from /home. Userland applications do
    > store their configs in user directories. Since the mounting and crypto
    > stuff happens at system boot, before moving into userland, it will be
    > transparent to th euser by the time you need to login, start an app, or
    > whatever.
    >
    > So, me - I'd leave /usr/ports alone and make /home it's own partition. Just
    > my $.02 :-)


    That's how I have kept it myself but since installing pcbsd i learned
    about their /usr/home schema and I wanted to discuss its merits. I googled
    it but came up with very little.

    Thanks "Jason" :-) , I am inclined to make /usr or /usr/ports large now as
    I want to compile open office next. I've only been tinkering with freebsd
    for a couple of years now - using it for internet and some multimedia
    processing but want to install open office now. I have been 100% linux for
    the last ten years but will be going fully over to freebsd very
    soon - just as soon as I have got flash working. It's not for me,, it's
    the kids who cant live without flash - youtube you know. lol

    >
    > -Jason


    --
    ___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
    / _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
    / // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
    /____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/


  6. Re: /usr/home re ports

    JE wrote:

    > Once again, why not have a separate partition for /usr/ports ? If it looks


    How large should it be for a reasonable use? I don't use OpenOffice or
    anything similar in size. I use Xorg, though, which might be as large,
    maybe. Xorg, The Gimp, LaTeX are the largest programs I use.

    From a post to this group I've read this weekend, I asume binaries of
    the base system go to /usr/obj/. Since I want to have a /usr as small
    and clean as possible (I have it 1GB large now, but I haven't compiled
    the base system up to now, and I have plenty of space), how large should
    /usr/obj/ be? Any other /usr subdirectory I should make its own
    partition or a symlink or NFS mount?

    Thank you.

    --
    Saludos,
    Angel

  7. Re: /usr/home re ports

    On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 19:42:41 UTC, Angel wrote:

    > From a post to this group I've read this weekend, I asume binaries of
    > the base system go to /usr/obj/. Since I want to have a /usr as small
    > and clean as possible (I have it 1GB large now, but I haven't compiled
    > the base system up to now, and I have plenty of space), how large should
    > /usr/obj/ be? Any other /usr subdirectory I should make its own
    > partition or a symlink or NFS mount?


    I set up /usr/obj to be 2GB. I suspect even 1GB is more than enough.

    I also put /usr/src on a separate partiton and mount it with 'noatime'
    to speed things up a bit. 1GB is enough there.

    --
    Bob Eager
    UNIX since v6..
    http://tinyurl.com/2xqr6h


  8. Re: /usr/home re ports

    Bob Eager wrote:
    > On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 19:42:41 UTC, Angel wrote:
    >
    >> From a post to this group I've read this weekend, I asume binaries of
    >> the base system go to /usr/obj/. Since I want to have a /usr as small
    >> and clean as possible (I have it 1GB large now, but I haven't compiled
    >> the base system up to now, and I have plenty of space), how large should
    >> /usr/obj/ be? Any other /usr subdirectory I should make its own
    >> partition or a symlink or NFS mount?

    >
    > I set up /usr/obj to be 2GB. I suspect even 1GB is more than enough.
    >
    > I also put /usr/src on a separate partiton and mount it with 'noatime'
    > to speed things up a bit. 1GB is enough there.


    Excellent. Thank you! 1GB (or even 2GB) for each is more than
    reasonable given the current hard disk sizes and the prize per GB. :-)

    On the other hand, for old hardware, which I love using and use quite a
    lot, 1 or 2BG of NFS (or removable) disk is also quite easy to have.

    I'll have /usr/ports, /usr/src and /usr/obj on their own partitions from
    now, together with a small /, /var, swap, /usr, /usr/local, /opt/, srv
    and /home.

    --
    Saludos,
    Angel

  9. Re: /usr/home re ports

    Angel wrote:

    > I'll have /usr/ports, /usr/src and /usr/obj on their own partitions from
    > now, together with a small /, /var, swap, /usr, /usr/local, /opt/, srv
    > and /home.


    Does it sound reasonable to partition a 20GB HD this way?

    256MB /
    256MB swap
    256MB /var
    256MB /tmp
    1GB /usr
    2GB /usr/local
    1GB /usr/obj
    1GB /usr/ports
    1GB /usr/src
    5GB /srv
    8GB /home

    Of course I won't be using large programs like OpenOffice or desktop
    environments (Gnome, KDE or XFCE4) on such a box.

    --
    Saludos,
    Angel

  10. Re: /usr/home re ports

    Angel wrote:
    > Angel wrote:
    >
    > > I'll have /usr/ports, /usr/src and /usr/obj on their own partitions from
    > > now, together with a small /, /var, swap, /usr, /usr/local, /opt/, srv
    > > and /home.

    >
    > Does it sound reasonable to partition a 20GB HD this way?
    >
    > 256MB /
    > 256MB swap
    > 256MB /var
    > 256MB /tmp
    > 1GB /usr
    > 2GB /usr/local
    > 1GB /usr/obj
    > 1GB /usr/ports
    > 1GB /usr/src
    > 5GB /srv
    > 8GB /home
    >
    > Of course I won't be using large programs like OpenOffice or desktop
    > environments (Gnome, KDE or XFCE4) on such a box.
    >


    I use large programs and /usr/local frequently uses 5-6 Gigs.


    --

    Michel TALON


  11. Re: /usr/home re ports

    In article , dead_paul@no.reply says...
    >
    >Will ports stand being moved to /home and ports compile
    >correctly from there? pro's cons anyone? Maybe I should just make sure
    >/usr or / is 10 to 20 GB and leave it where it is. I do prefer /home on
    >its own partition though.


    There is no reason to make a large /usr. You can use an alternate
    temporary directory for building ports. This is detailed in the
    handbook under section 4.5.2.1. You can make port buildiing options
    permament by putting them in /etc/make.conf.

    For our site, the development machine has /usr/opt, /usr/src, and
    /usr/ports residing on 1G MD devices. This allows us to mount
    different release versions as needed.


  12. Re: /usr/home re ports

    In article <3mhh05-eql.ln1@darwin.ugr.es>, Angel wrote:
    >Angel wrote:
    >
    >> I'll have /usr/ports, /usr/src and /usr/obj on their own partitions from
    >> now, together with a small /, /var, swap, /usr, /usr/local, /opt/, srv
    >> and /home.

    >
    >Does it sound reasonable to partition a 20GB HD this way?
    >
    >256MB /
    >256MB swap
    >256MB /var
    >256MB /tmp
    > 1GB /usr
    > 2GB /usr/local
    > 1GB /usr/obj
    > 1GB /usr/ports
    > 1GB /usr/src
    > 5GB /srv
    > 8GB /home
    >
    >Of course I won't be using large programs like OpenOffice or desktop
    >environments (Gnome, KDE or XFCE4) on such a box.
    >
    >--
    >Saludos,
    >Angel


    The only problem I see is that by splitting the /usr into several
    filesystems you cuold overflow one and then start having to use
    symlinks to get space, or reinstall. I'd put all of
    the /usr and it's subdirectories just under /usr

    Bill
    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

+ Reply to Thread