Bill wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am newbie to linux. Now I want to setup a CentOS linux server. But I
> was told to allocate separate partition to mount point like /etc, /

No.. on /etc. It needs to be part of /

> home, but I don't understand the reason to do it this way. Can you
> explain it to me?

Partitioning can be used for isolation, for security, for performance...

>
> If I do allocate separate partiton to /etc, /home, if later on I
> reinstall the Linux server, can the previous /etc, /home remains
> unchanged and the old user settings remains unchanged?

Again, you SHOULD NOT have a separate /etc. However, you can make
/ quite small if you have /usr, /var, /tmp, /boot, /home, etc. as different
partitions.

>
> If I do allocate separate partition to /etc, /home, it means I can't
> share space among /home and /, right?

One disadvantage of partitioning is the isolation of areas.
IMHO, it's more of a pro than a con though. But if space is tight,
a single fat root filesystem may just be what the doctor ordered.

>
> Is there a way to keep the server settings such as apps, users
> unchanged when I reinstall the server?

Having a separate partition (or other, there are options) for /home
isn't a bad idea. That's where most of the end user configuration
information goes (similar to the Documents and Settings area in
Windows).

I would backup /etc before doing an upgrade.

Bill writes:

>Hi all,

>I am newbie to linux. Now I want to setup a CentOS linux server. But I
>was told to allocate separate partition to mount point like /etc, /
>home, but I don't understand the reason to do it this way. Can you
>explain it to me?

Advantage-- you can wipe the partition containing the installed OS and
leave your user etc stuff alone. Disadvantage-- you cah guess wrong about
how much space each partition needs and have 5GB free in one partation
while the other is out of room.


>If I do allocate separate partiton to /etc, /home, if later on I
>reinstall the Linux server, can the previous /etc, /home remains
>unchanged and the old user settings remains unchanged?

Sometimes. /etc/is dicey. The config file format can change. /home is your
stuff so yes you just use it.


>If I do allocate separate partition to /etc, /home, it means I can't
>share space among /home and /, right?

That is the disadvantage


>Is there a way to keep the server settings such as apps, users
>unchanged when I reinstall the server?

>Regards
>-Bill

Le 09.07.2008 04:42, Bill a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I am newbie to linux. Now I want to setup a CentOS linux server. But I
> was told to allocate separate partition to mount point like /etc, /
> home, but I don't understand the reason to do it this way. Can you
> explain it to me?
>
> If I do allocate separate partiton to /etc, /home, if later on I
> reinstall the Linux server, can the previous /etc, /home remains
> unchanged and the old user settings remains unchanged?

It is usefull to have a separate partition for /home for you can keep it
unchanged while you upgrade/change you OS.

No need for /etc which is necessary for system config and *must* be
changed while changing your system.

>
> If I do allocate separate partition to /etc, /home, it means I can't
> share space among /home and /, right?
>
> Is there a way to keep the server settings such as apps, users
> unchanged when I reinstall the server?

If you build a "solid" partitionning, you cannot change their size
except if you use some tools like gparted or partition magic.

but you can build your system using LVM, in that case you can resize
your partitions from the system if you need it.


I use to build my system like this:

/ is a primary small (1GB) partition.

Rest of disk is a LVM system where I have separate partitions for /usr,
/opt, /home, /var, /tmp

With LVM I can resize easily my partitions if I need.

With separate /home, I can keep all user datas in case of upgrading.

with separate /opt (with a symlink /usr/local pointing to this
partition), I can keep all "local" configs or apps not distributed by
the distro if I change or upgrade the OS.

separate /var prevents the system from becoming full if some application
becomes mad and fills the log files.

separate /tmp is in case of problems if users burn some dvd and for some
reason the image (~9GB) is not removed after burning: /tmp could be 100%
full and users can still use their home directories, this is better than
a 100% full /home.

--
François Patte
Université Paris 5 - Paris

Bill wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am newbie to linux. Now I want to setup a CentOS linux server. But I
> was told to allocate separate partition to mount point like /etc, /
> home, but I don't understand the reason to do it this way. Can you
> explain it to me?

/etc can't be assigned a mount point. It's one of the directories that must
/remain on /. (the only things that need to be on / are the ones required at
boot time, they are /etc, /lib, /bin and /sbin.

The reasons for putting everything else on their own partitions include...
1: if a rogue process starts writing lots of data to the root filesystem to
such an extent that / fills up, serious things can happen, including loss of
data as processes attempt to write to other files on it, sometimes resulting
in an overwritten file with no data (cos there was no space to write the
data).

for some partitions such as /home, it also safeguards your home partition
should you need to reinstall or perform an update. Installs usually demand
partition formatting and if /home is not on /, it will preserve your user
data.

The rogue process filling up diskspace problem is usually countered by
putting /var and /tmp on their own partitions.

With multiple paritions you can also specify different read/write privilages
to different partitions, so, / and /usr could be mounted read only (and only
switched to read/write when upgrading software), which protects against
worms and crackers trying to overwrite important system files with
infected/corrupted versions that could do their bidding.


> If I do allocate separate partiton to /etc, /home, if later on I
> reinstall the Linux server, can the previous /etc, /home remains
> unchanged and the old user settings remains unchanged?

That's the point of /home, to preserve your data.
(mine's gone through multiple reinstalls and hard disk swaps over the past
10 years or so, and it's still pretty much as it was back then, though
bigger)

> If I do allocate separate partition to /etc, /home, it means I can't
> share space among /home and /, right?
>
> Is there a way to keep the server settings such as apps, users
> unchanged when I reinstall the server?

You can backup /etc with tar.
But if a package has been updated and uses a slightly modified config file,
a blanket untarring of /etc would break that application, so you need to
know what you're doing with that one.
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

Unruh wrote:
> Bill writes:
>
>>Hi all,
>
>>I am newbie to linux. Now I want to setup a CentOS linux server. But I
>>was told to allocate separate partition to mount point like /etc, /
>>home, but I don't understand the reason to do it this way. Can you
>>explain it to me?
>
> Advantage-- you can wipe the partition containing the installed OS and
> leave your user etc stuff alone. Disadvantage-- you cah guess wrong about
> how much space each partition needs and have 5GB free in one partation
> while the other is out of room.

With the size of hard drives currently available, it's not as big an issue
as it once was.


--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spike1@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

Bill wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am newbie to linux. Now I want to setup a CentOS linux server. But I
> was told to allocate separate partition to mount point like /etc, /
> home, but I don't understand the reason to do it this way. Can you
> explain it to me?

You better keep /etc as part of / because if you do not, you will probably
be unable to boot your system.

I had a lot of experience with UNIX before running Linux. I started Linux
with Red Hat Linux 5.0. I made too many partitions; i.e., some of them
filled up and some of them were nearly empty. So the next time I installed
Linux (RHL 5.2, IIRC), I made less partitions.

The advantages of many partitions are that each partition can be protected
from errors or changes in the others.

The disatvantages of many partitions are that extra space in one can not
easily or simply used in another.

For a novice, I would suggest one partition for swap, and one for everything
else. This assumes only one hard drive. If you have more than one, you will
need at least one partition per drive. Later, you could have more. Being in
my tenth or so year of running Linux, and having a machine with six hard
drives (some of them relatively tiny, and some small by today's standards),
My hard drives are as follows:

Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 101086 27702 68165 29% /boot
/dev/sda2 16253956 3620100 11794864 24% /usr
/dev/sda3 4061572 388496 3463428 11% /
/dev/sda5 12192608 3942316 7620948 35% /home
/dev/sda6 8123168 151096 7552780 2% /tmp
/dev/sda7 4061540 124648 3727248 4% /usr/local
/dev/sda8 4061540 1662172 2189724 44% /srv/dbms/dataA
/dev/sdb1 16253924 1535132 13879800 10% /home/boinc
/dev/sdb2 6092388 1059504 4718412 19% /opt
/dev/sdb3 4061572 167240 3684684 5% /usr/src
/dev/sdb5 16253924 1559144 13855788 11% /homeB
/dev/sdb6 12192608 359372 11203892 4% /var
/dev/sdb7 4061540 80220 3771676 3% /srv/dbms/dataB
/dev/sdc1 17390224 243568 16249028 2% /srv/dbms/dataC
/dev/sdd1 17390224 401376 16091220 3% /srv/dbms/dataD
/dev/sde1 17390224 512928 15979668 4% /srv/dbms/dataE
/dev/sdf1 17390224 403680 16088916 3% /srv/dbms/dataF

/dev/sda8, /dev/sdb7, and /dev/sd[c-f] are for a postgreSQL database.
You might not need any of them.

I have a separate /boot partition for historical reasons. You might well
just keep it in / Note it can be quite small.

There is a lot to be said for having separate /home, /tmp, and /var
partitions. That way, accidently filling up /home may crash a program you
are running, but it will not crash your system. System logs tend to go in
/var/log, so if you fill that up by mistake, it need not crash your system,
though you will not like it. But if you have never run a Linux system with
your load, it will be very difficult to determine the required sizes of the
partitions. That is why I suggest starting with swap and one for everything
else. After running for a year or so, you will have a pretty good idea what
the sizes of additional partitions need to be.
>
> If I do allocate separate partiton to /etc, /home, if later on I
> reinstall the Linux server, can the previous /etc, /home remains
> unchanged and the old user settings remains unchanged?

First of all, do not move /etc from / or you will be sorry. As far as
separating the others, you can retain the older settings, though they may
not always work. The best way to keep settings from /etc is to copy them
somewhere that will be safe. E.g., on your backup device if it is removable
(tape, hot-swappable hard drive, CD-ROM, etc.). Then copy individual files
back if you need to. If you have a separate /home, you can retain this if
you do your install correctly (i.e., do not let it overwrite /home).
>
> If I do allocate separate partition to /etc, /home, it means I can't
> share space among /home and /, right?

Not easily. You can do some things with symbolic links, but you can confuse
yourself that way.
>
> Is there a way to keep the server settings such as apps, users
> unchanged when I reinstall the server?

Many of those are in the user's home directory, so if /home is a separate
partition, they can be saved.
>
> Regards
> -Bill


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:45:01 up 13 days, 17:05, 4 users, load average: 4.14, 4.21, 4.20

Bill writes:
> If I do allocate separate partition to /etc, /home, it means I can't
> share space among /home and /, right?

Bill Unruh writes:
> That is the disadvantage.

Unless you use LVM.

> Is there a way to keep the server settings such as apps, users unchanged
> when I reinstall the server?

With Debian I put /home on a seperate partition and back up it, /etc, and
the output of "dpkg --get-selections > selections". You can then restore
/home and /etc from the backup and reinstall the same exact selection of
packages with "dpkg --set selections < selections & apt-get -y update &
apt-get dselect-upgrade". No doubt something similar is possible with
CentOS.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Bill wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am newbie to linux. Now I want to setup a CentOS linux server. But I
> was told to allocate separate partition to mount point like /etc, /
> home, but I don't understand the reason to do it this way. Can you
> explain it to me?
>
> If I do allocate separate partiton to /etc, /home, if later on I
> reinstall the Linux server, can the previous /etc, /home remains
> unchanged and the old user settings remains unchanged?
>
> If I do allocate separate partition to /etc, /home, it means I can't
> share space among /home and /, right?
>
> Is there a way to keep the server settings such as apps, users
> unchanged when I reinstall the server?
>
> Regards
> -Bill

Hi Bill; I have found no advantage to making all those separate partitions on my
200 gig hard drive.
I make / only. all those supposedly "needed" partitions become subdirectories
off /.
I back-up my "home/leon" subdirectory on my old 80 gig hard drive.
I have been running things like this for several years and have had no problem
stemming from having only the / partition.
I actually have several Linux versions on the 200g drive and use that to try out
other Linux versions but my favourite is Slackware.


--
Leon
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
< running Linux >

François Patte wrote:
> Le 09.07.2008 04:42, Bill a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am newbie to linux. Now I want to setup a CentOS linux server. But I
>> was told to allocate separate partition to mount point like /etc, /
>> home, but I don't understand the reason to do it this way. Can you
>> explain it to me?
>>
>> If I do allocate separate partiton to /etc, /home, if later on I
>> reinstall the Linux server, can the previous /etc, /home remains
>> unchanged and the old user settings remains unchanged?
>
> It is usefull to have a separate partition for /home for you can keep it
> unchanged while you upgrade/change you OS.
>
> No need for /etc which is necessary for system config and *must* be
> changed while changing your system.
>
>>
>> If I do allocate separate partition to /etc, /home, it means I can't
>> share space among /home and /, right?
>>
>> Is there a way to keep the server settings such as apps, users
>> unchanged when I reinstall the server?
>
> If you build a "solid" partitionning, you cannot change their size
> except if you use some tools like gparted or partition magic.
>
> but you can build your system using LVM, in that case you can resize
> your partitions from the system if you need it.
>
>
> I use to build my system like this:
>
> / is a primary small (1GB) partition.
>
> Rest of disk is a LVM system where I have separate partitions for /usr,
> /opt, /home, /var, /tmp
>
> With LVM I can resize easily my partitions if I need.
>
> With separate /home, I can keep all user datas in case of upgrading.
>
> with separate /opt (with a symlink /usr/local pointing to this
> partition), I can keep all "local" configs or apps not distributed by
> the distro if I change or upgrade the OS.
>
> separate /var prevents the system from becoming full if some application
> becomes mad and fills the log files.

Many programs use /var for more than log files.
Its the default web server area in apache, and the default place to put
Mysql data as well.

My servers have a 50/50 split of spare space between /var and /home.
/var is used for all data that isn't straight 'file' data and /home is
where the Samba mounts mostly are for a generalised shared repository of
user clag.

I splt things this way for ee of backup. The /var contains most of te
important hard data, the /home is generally a scratch area, subject to
less rigourus backups.

/var/tmp is linked to /tmp IIRC and is not backed up as its full of
stuff like SQUID cache and so on.


>
> separate /tmp is in case of problems if users burn some dvd and for some
> reason the image (~9GB) is not removed after burning: /tmp could be 100%
> full and users can still use their home directories, this is better than
> a 100% full /home.
>

Thats why I link it into a massive /var. and clean /var/tmp periodically.

Leon Whyte wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am newbie to linux. Now I want to setup a CentOS linux server. But I
>> was told to allocate separate partition to mount point like /etc, /
>> home, but I don't understand the reason to do it this way. Can you
>> explain it to me?
>>
>> If I do allocate separate partiton to /etc, /home, if later on I
>> reinstall the Linux server, can the previous /etc, /home remains
>> unchanged and the old user settings remains unchanged?
>>
>> If I do allocate separate partition to /etc, /home, it means I can't
>> share space among /home and /, right?
>>
>> Is there a way to keep the server settings such as apps, users
>> unchanged when I reinstall the server?
>>
>> Regards
>> -Bill
>
> Hi Bill; I have found no advantage to making all those separate
> partitions on my 200 gig hard drive.
> I make / only. all those supposedly "needed" partitions become
> subdirectories off /.
> I back-up my "home/leon" subdirectory on my old 80 gig hard drive.
> I have been running things like this for several years and have had no
> problem stemming from having only the / partition.
> I actually have several Linux versions on the 200g drive and use that to
> try out other Linux versions but my favourite is Slackware.
>
>
Thats a a fair policy for a small system, and if you run out of space,
you can e.g. archive off /var and /home. and then ad a new disk and
clean the old /var and /home. and mount two new partitions over the old
mount points: copy the data back, and off you go.


However I would suggest that the consensus here is to put the root
filesystems (/ /etc /bin /lib /usr /sbin )on a separate small partition,
as its size is fairly fixed, and it does make upgrades easier.

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Patte?= writes:

>Le 09.07.2008 04:42, Bill a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am newbie to linux. Now I want to setup a CentOS linux server. But I
>> was told to allocate separate partition to mount point like /etc, /
>> home, but I don't understand the reason to do it this way. Can you
>> explain it to me?
>>
>> If I do allocate separate partiton to /etc, /home, if later on I
>> reinstall the Linux server, can the previous /etc, /home remains
>> unchanged and the old user settings remains unchanged?

>It is usefull to have a separate partition for /home for you can keep it
>unchanged while you upgrade/change you OS.

>No need for /etc which is necessary for system config and *must* be
>changed while changing your system.

Actually as has been pointed out /etc, /bin /lib MUST be on the /
partitions. They cannot be on separate partitions since they are crucial in
booting up the computer ( at which point only the / partition is mounted. )
For example /etc contains fstab, and that is the only way the system knows
what other partitions are to be mounted and where. /bin contains critical
programs ( like mount) /lib contains the modules, etc.

On 2008-07-09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> Many programs use /var for more than log files.
> Its the default web server area in apache, and the default place to put
> Mysql data as well.

If I may whinge for a minute, I really get frustrated at the default
locations for these files. If anything, this data should go under
/usr/local (or /opt), not /var. And I never use the defaults; I always
edit the configuration files to host my web/db data in the directories I
specify, and I recommend that too to anyone hosting a real server. (For
a simple home desktop testing these things out I'm less dogmatic.)


--keith


--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

On 2008-07-09, Chris Cox wrote:
>
> Partitioning can be used for isolation, for security, for performance...

Something I haven't yet seen as an advantage for partitioning is to make
it easier to do a wipe and new install of a different OS. If /usr/local
and /home (and if you use it, /opt) are separate partitions, you can
simply wipe / and /usr (and if you choose /tmp and /var) and start
fresh, without fear of remnants of the previous distro getting in the
way.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:56:39 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

> Something I haven't yet seen as an advantage for partitioning is to make
> it easier to do a wipe and new install of a different OS. If /usr/local
> and /home (and if you use it, /opt) are separate partitions, you can
> simply wipe / and /usr (and if you choose /tmp and /var) and start
> fresh, without fear of remnants of the previous distro getting in the
> way.



Heheheheh, been there done that. I used to put my 3'rd party apps in /opt.
I did some distribution install and found a bunch of stuff in /opt.
Some distro's store stuff in /var.


Now I have my own /local/(opt,bin,doc...) partition for my stuff.
All installs go into their own / partition, including /home.
My default install is done the same way.

When a new version of my default install comes out, I install it in
it's own partition. Once I have happy that it works, I can use the old
partition for the next install.

All files in /home/bittwister that I want to share across installs are
linked to /accounts/bittwister.

That allows one distribution/install's desktop manager to not screw up
another install's desktop settings.

Example: you might be running KDE 3.x and new install is running KDE 4.x
You may be in for a rude surprise when booting original install.

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Andrew Halliwell wrote:

> Unruh wrote:
>> Bill writes:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>
>>> I am newbie to linux. Now I want to setup a CentOS linux server. But I
>>> was told to allocate separate partition to mount point like /etc, /
>>> home, but I don't understand the reason to do it this way. Can you
>>> explain it to me?
>>
>> Advantage-- you can wipe the partition containing the installed OS and
>> leave your user etc stuff alone. Disadvantage-- you cah guess wrong about
>> how much space each partition needs and have 5GB free in one partation
>> while the other is out of room.
>
> With the size of hard drives currently available, it's not as big an issue
> as it once was.
>
>
But still, someone with no experience may not allocate the percentages
properly, and still end up with too little space here and too much space
there.

Yes, the size of the hard drives today mean you can be generous and not
worry about waste, but without a good handle on what uses what, you can
underallocate.

It's definitely worth keeping /home separate because that's where your
work will land. Allocate that well, and then you can scratch the rest of
the hard drive and redo things, using separate partitions for the rest if
you feel the need, or not if you realize you made a mistake on the initial
install. Or reallocate the rest of the drive, while leaving /home safe.

When I first installed Linux, I had the intention of playing with other
distributions and all that, but it didn't take very long before I was
"stuck" because I hadn't allocated a separate partition for /home and I'd
invested too much in that directory (and no CD writer to back it up at the
time). If I'd allocated /home as a separate partition, it would have
been easy to play with things.

I was going to point out that with such large drives now, there is no
great reason to allocate it all from the start. I bought a 160gig hard
drive 3 years ago, and I've not allocated more than 30 or 40gigs. That
includes 3 different versions of my distribution (at this point, the
oldest could be removed, and maybe even the last one, since I'm not
moving back, but it's useful to be able to keep the old version going
while you try out the new). I allocate a partition for each version,
allocate a partition for /home. If I want to try a new version of
my distribution, I will run it with /home as part of the allocated
partition, until I'm ready to move over and then I'll do the things
to use my /home partition there (easy, since you can mount the partition
at /home and the partition overrides the directory there).

I've carved out other partitions as needed. I have one for photos, and
another for mp3s, and another for large files that I've downloaded. I
don't think any partition is bigger than 10gigs, and usually smaller,
which makes it easy to save a partition to a DVD (and since I'm keeping
things sort of together, it makes things more findable than having
everything lumped together). I mount the needed partition as needed,
and then unmount it when I'm finished the work there. In effect, I treat
the data partitions as removeable media.

Since I've not allocated the whole 160gigs, I have more flexibility than
if I'd carved it up into various partitions from the start, only to find
I'd allocated wrong. But since they are also manageable size partitions,
I can back them up easier than if I had a 150gig /home partition. If one
partition gets too small, I can carve out a new one, move things there,
then reallocate the old partition.

Michael

Unruh wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Patte?= writes:
>
>> Le 09.07.2008 04:42, Bill a écrit :
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am newbie to linux. Now I want to setup a CentOS linux server. But I
>>> was told to allocate separate partition to mount point like /etc, /
>>> home, but I don't understand the reason to do it this way. Can you
>>> explain it to me?
>>>
>>> If I do allocate separate partiton to /etc, /home, if later on I
>>> reinstall the Linux server, can the previous /etc, /home remains
>>> unchanged and the old user settings remains unchanged?
>
>> It is usefull to have a separate partition for /home for you can keep it
>> unchanged while you upgrade/change you OS.
>
>> No need for /etc which is necessary for system config and *must* be
>> changed while changing your system.
>
> Actually as has been pointed out /etc, /bin /lib MUST be on the /
> partitions. They cannot be on separate partitions since they are crucial in
> booting up the computer ( at which point only the / partition is mounted. )
> For example /etc contains fstab, and that is the only way the system knows
> what other partitions are to be mounted and where. /bin contains critical
> programs ( like mount) /lib contains the modules, etc.
>

It is possible to have them as skeletons on the root partition, and
mount over them with more extensive copies later in the boot process.


That helps with - for example - a /usr space that has been extended with
lots of exra sofwtare in e.g. /usr/local.

Needless to say its a pain in the butt when doing upgrades..you ned to
manually doesn't and update copies in the RAW /usr etc.

Nevertheless we used to do this occasionally on systems that were being
emergency disk space upgraded until we had time to take the whole
machine down and re-equip its drives. The other option was symlinks,
which always seemed to get broken somehow..

Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2008-07-09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Many programs use /var for more than log files.
>> Its the default web server area in apache, and the default place to put
>> Mysql data as well.
>
> If I may whinge for a minute, I really get frustrated at the default
> locations for these files. If anything, this data should go under
> /usr/local (or /opt), not /var. And I never use the defaults; I always
> edit the configuration files to host my web/db data in the directories I
> specify, and I recommend that too to anyone hosting a real server. (For
> a simple home desktop testing these things out I'm less dogmatic.)
>
>
> --keith
>
>
I dont think it matters. I am the other way around: I tend to leave
things where the distro puts them because it wont be the first time that
some later upgrade comes along and ignore the config files with one of a
suite of programs..this breaking the whole thing completely.


It's easier to e.g. mount a new partition on /var/lib/mysql if you want
it separate..and protected from../var/log for example.

Keith Keller wrote:
> If I may whinge for a minute, I really get frustrated at the default
> locations for these files. If anything, this data should go under
> /usr/local (or /opt), not /var.

/var is exactly where the FHS says it should go.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Keith Keller wrote:
>> On 2008-07-09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Many programs use /var for more than log files. Its the default web
>>> server area in apache, and the default place to put Mysql data as
>>> well.
>> If I may whinge for a minute, I really get frustrated at the default
>> locations for these files. If anything, this data should go under
>> /usr/local (or /opt), not /var. And I never use the defaults; I always
>> edit the configuration files to host my web/db data in the directories
>> I specify, and I recommend that too to anyone hosting a real server.
>> (For a simple home desktop testing these things out I'm less dogmatic.)
>>
>>
>>
>> --keith
>>
>>
> I dont think it matters. I am the other way around: I tend to leave
> things where the distro puts them because it wont be the first time that
> some later upgrade comes along and ignore the config files with one of a
> suite of programs..this breaking the whole thing completely.
>
I know! Just yesterday my distro upgraded bind (named) and put in a new
/etc/sysconfig/named file.

All well and good, but it insisted my named stuff was in /var/named/chroot
whereas I keep it in /srv/named. I forgot that my distro puts the name
server in /var instead of /srv. So of course, named no longer worked. When I
noticed it was not in the pstree list, it was easy enough to fix, but I wish
it would let the file alone. Their new file had nothing in it but comments.


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 15:45:01 up 14 days, 1:05, 4 users, load average: 4.36, 4.41, 4.34