/ /home on different partitions? - Suse

This is a discussion on / /home on different partitions? - Suse ; SUSE likes to put root and home on different partitions. Some distros like to separate /boot also. If you have only one hard drive, what is the advantage/disadvange of this vs. all on one partition? thanks...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55

Thread: / /home on different partitions?

  1. / /home on different partitions?

    SUSE likes to put root and home on different partitions. Some distros
    like to separate /boot also. If you have only one hard drive, what is
    the advantage/disadvange of this vs. all on one partition?

    thanks

  2. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    Hi,

    larry wrote:

    > SUSE likes to put root and home on different partitions. Some distros
    > like to separate /boot also. If you have only one hard drive, what is
    > the advantage/disadvange of this vs. all on one partition?


    A separate file system mounted to /home allows you to preserve your user
    files without elaborate backup or copying, e.g. during reinstall /
    upgrade / switching distribution. Minor fragmentation advantages.

    kind regards,
    Andreas


  3. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    larry wrote:

    > SUSE likes to put root and home on different partitions. Some distros
    > like to separate /boot also. If you have only one hard drive, what is
    > the advantage/disadvange of this vs. all on one partition?


    Hi Larry,

    The idea behind separating / and /home/ on different partitions is related
    to a possible future system update. Once you decide to change distribution,
    or update your present installation with a new one without using the
    internal upgrade process, it's very useful to have your own data in a
    different location. Root partition can subsequently be erased, while /home/
    is kept unchanged. This also applies to systems with only one hard disk.

    I personally do not recommend to split partitioning any further
    (/usr, /boot, /var ), as it's very unpractical to change partitioning
    afterwards, in case one of your partitions should fill up.

    With regards,
    Hendric
    --
    Hendric Stattmann, Mödling, Austria. Registered Linux User #178879
    For e-mail contact, please use

  4. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    larry wrote:
    > SUSE likes to put root and home on different partitions. Some distros
    > like to separate /boot also. If you have only one hard drive, what is
    > the advantage/disadvange of this vs. all on one partition?


    The advantage of /home on a seperate partition (which was proposed to
    SUSE by some kind of Gos, I heard) is that if you do a new instalation
    (and many people do that instead of an upgrade) you do not loose your
    data and personal settings.

    Many people in this group in the past advised to do a seperate /home, so
    it was a logical step to have at least /home seperate.

    The next thing that followed was the proposal to have seperate /boot,
    /apt, /srv, /usr, ...

    The reason that it decided against is that this would mean way too many
    problems afterwards, due to way to many things that could go wrong.

    Also people who need it should be able to decide for themselves as to
    what they need and nog go with the proposal. (and that is what it is,
    just a proposal)

    Now the reason for a seperate /boot is the reason for almost any
    seperate partition.
    1) You can mount it 'read only' so your system is a bit safer
    2) In the time of smaller disks, you could format with a different
    blocksize, so you could save space.

    On servers the first reason might be an extremely good reason. However
    if that is imortant to you, you better learn `man hier` by hart. Learn
    it, love it, live it.

    The moment you have several systems, you can start to fool around
    seriously with partitions in that way that you can put as much on one
    big system and as little as possible on each other system. This will
    make it much easier to maintain.

    From `man hier`, probably the most interesting part:

    /usr This directory is usually mounted from a separate partition. It
    should hold only sharable, read-only data, so that it can be
    mounted by various machines running Linux.

    Other directories that often have a seperate partition, seperate HD or
    even seperate server are:
    /var/spool/ because there can be a lot of read and write going on and
    mail is there as well
    /var/spool/news if you have a news server
    /srv if you have a webserver or ftp server

    The thing I still miss is where to place shared data. Obviously you can
    place it anywhere you like, but it would be nice if there were a
    standard on where to put shared data.

    So to answer you question what the advatages are from one over the
    other? That utterly and completely depends on you. There is no right
    answer on what is better or what is worse. Each system has is pros and
    cons.

    houghi
    --
    This was written under the influence of the following:
    | Artist : Frank Zappa
    | Song : Willie The Pimp
    | Album : Hot Rats

  5. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    In alt.os.linux.suse, larry wrote:

    > SUSE likes to put root and home on different partitions. Some distros
    > like to separate /boot also. If you have only one hard drive, what is
    > the advantage/disadvange of this vs. all on one partition?


    Many reasons:

    - Make intellegent use of disk space by reserving space for future expansion
    of your filesystems

    - To perform optimization of disk access resources by placing heavily used
    disk resources closer to optimum seek point of the disk

    - To impose restrictions on the size of certain directory subtrees
    (i.e. /tmp or /var/spool/lpd) to ensure that they do not grow beyond
    certain preset sizes.

    - To facilitate backup and recovery by enabling volume backups as well as
    directory tree/subtree backups

    - To facilitate upgrades by ensuring that the upgrade process doesn't delete
    or reformat certain directory subtrees (like /tmp or /var/spool/news) as
    part of the installation/upgrade process

    - To restrict online access to certain directory subtrees (i.e. /boot) by
    ensuring that they are not mounted when they are not needed.

    - To provide alternate (or recovery) directory subtrees, by offering offline
    space for image archives of critical directory subtrees, or by providing
    space for alternate versions of the directory subtrees (i.e. a "recovery"
    root fs)

    - To provide alternate filesystem formatting (journal fs vs unjournaled fs),
    to meet the needs of the use of the filesystem (i.e. use journalling
    filesystems where recovery is required (like / or /home), and
    non-journalling filesystems where recovery is unnecessary (like /tmp
    or /var/tmp ).

    - To provide alternate filesystem blocksizes (1K, 4K, etc) to meet the needs
    of the use of the filesystem (i.e. smaller blocksizes for filesystems that
    store many small files vs larger blocksizes for filesystems that store
    large files).

    - To improve startup times by permitting parallalization of filesystem
    checks (fsck) when the operating system boots

    --
    Lew Pitcher

    Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576
    http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | GPG public key available by request
    ---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------



  6. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    Lew Pitcher wrote:
    > In alt.os.linux.suse, larry wrote:
    >
    >> SUSE likes to put root and home on different partitions. Some distros
    >> like to separate /boot also. If you have only one hard drive, what is
    >> the advantage/disadvange of this vs. all on one partition?

    >
    > Many reasons:



    A great list. I think you forget one:
    - To show off

    ;-)

    houghi
    --
    This was written under the influence of the following:
    | Artist : Frank Zappa
    | Song : Willie The Pimp
    | Album : Hot Rats

  7. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    On Sat, 24 May 2008, Hendric Stattmann wrote:-



    >I personally do not recommend to split partitioning any further
    >(/usr, /boot, /var ),


    I always have a separate /boot, formatted using ext2 as it doesn't need
    to have a journal. I also have /var/log and /tmp[0] just in case
    something goes nuts and starts writing large quantities of data, either
    to a log file, or temp files.

    >as it's very unpractical to change partitioning
    >afterwards, in case one of your partitions should fill up.


    There's no problem with that if you use LVM and leave some space unused.


    [0] As well as separate /opt /usr /var /usr/local and /srv. The first
    three get wiped when doing a fresh install. The other two don't. I
    might, depending on when KDE4 finally becomes as nice to use as KDE3,
    end up merging /opt back in to / , but that's not going to happen before
    openSUSE 11.1 given the less-than-polished state it's at in 11.0.

    Regards,
    David Bolt

    --
    www.davjam.org/lifetype/ www.distributed.net: OGR@100Mnodes, RC5-72@15Mkeys
    SUSE 10.1 32bit | openSUSE 10.2 32bit | openSUSE 10.3 32bit | openSUSE 11.0b2
    SUSE 10.1 64bit | openSUSE 10.2 64bit | openSUSE 10.3 64bit
    RISC OS 3.6 | TOS 4.02 | openSUSE 10.3 PPC |RISC OS 3.11

  8. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    On Sat, 24 May 2008, houghi wrote:-

    >Lew Pitcher wrote:
    >> In alt.os.linux.suse, larry wrote:
    >>
    >>> SUSE likes to put root and home on different partitions. Some distros
    >>> like to separate /boot also. If you have only one hard drive, what is
    >>> the advantage/disadvange of this vs. all on one partition?

    >>
    >> Many reasons:

    >
    >
    >A great list. I think you forget one:
    >- To show off
    >
    >;-)


    Ooh, is there a dick^Wpartition waving contest going on? It's been a
    while since we've had one of those here. :-)

    Anyway, how many partitions do you need to enter? Is swap included or
    excluded?


    Regards,
    David Bolt

    --
    www.davjam.org/lifetype/ www.distributed.net: OGR@100Mnodes, RC5-72@15Mkeys
    SUSE 10.1 32bit | openSUSE 10.2 32bit | openSUSE 10.3 32bit | openSUSE 11.0b2
    SUSE 10.1 64bit | openSUSE 10.2 64bit | openSUSE 10.3 64bit
    RISC OS 3.6 | TOS 4.02 | openSUSE 10.3 PPC |RISC OS 3.11

  9. Amount of partitions (Was: / /home on different partitions?)

    David Bolt wrote:
    > Ooh, is there a dick^Wpartition waving contest going on? It's been a
    > while since we've had one of those here. :-)
    >
    > Anyway, how many partitions do you need to enter? Is swap included or
    > excluded?


    Let us first set up another rule. Is this only for 1-disk machines, or
    is this for multiple disk maschines as well?
    For multiple: do NFS or other remote mounted partitions count?
    Is an extended partition one and does the rest not count?
    If it is only for 1-disk machines, will NFS and other remote partitions
    What about partitions in memory?
    Must the partitions be activaly used?
    I asume CD, DVD and external devices are NOT counted, unless they are
    used as non-removable devices, e.g. the openSUSE DVD is never removed or
    a USB key that is used as /home/user

    This is what I have: (Info added by me)
    1-disk portable: 4-7
    pizza:~ # fdisk -l|grep ^/d|awk '{print $1}'
    /dev/sda1 swap
    /dev/sda2 Extended
    /dev/sda5 /
    /dev/sda6 /media/other (to use for an other /)
    /dev/sda7 /home
    udev /dev
    2 x NFS movies and /home/houghi/tmp of the other machine)

    4-disk desktop (all IDE): 6-11
    root@penne : fdisk -l|grep ^/d|awk '{print $1}'
    /dev/sda1 /
    /dev/hda1 swap
    /dev/hda2 /media/hda2 Used for symlinked news, srv and usr
    /dev/hda4 /media/movies
    /dev/sdb1 Not mounted, for 10.2
    /dev/sdb2 Not mounted, for 11.0
    /dev/hdb1 Not used currently
    /dev/hdb2 /home
    /dev/hdb3 /media/backup
    udev /dev
    1 x NFS /of the other machine

    The most I ever had was 15 or so. I then pretty fast learned what the
    downsides where of too many partitions without knowing what why.

    houghi
    --
    Theologians can pursuade themselves of anything. Anyone who can worship
    a trinity and insists that his religion is a monotheism can believe
    anything -- just give him time to rationalize it.
    Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice

  10. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    David Bolt wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 May 2008, Hendric Stattmann wrote:-
    >
    >
    >
    >>I personally do not recommend to split partitioning any further
    >>(/usr, /boot, /var ),

    >
    > I always have a separate /boot, formatted using ext2 as it doesn't need
    > to have a journal.


    Is that the only reason? Would it harm if it where on a ext3 and if not
    why not just put it together with the rest?
    Or do you unmount it after the boot?

    To me it sounds like a bogus reason just to get another partition in
    there to see how far you can stretch it, which is a great reason in
    itself.

    But then you could in theory give each seperate directory its own
    partition¹.

    ¹Now there lies a chalange. You would have to re-write mkdir, so it asks
    you how large the partition must be and then make the partition and
    mount it. It would also totaly shut up everybody else on how many
    partitions they have. You would most likely also need to re-write the
    kernel.
    houghi
    --
    Theologians can pursuade themselves of anything. Anyone who can worship
    a trinity and insists that his religion is a monotheism can believe
    anything -- just give him time to rationalize it.
    Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice

  11. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    Hello David,

    David Bolt wrote:

    (snipped)
    > I also have /var/log and /tmp[0] just in case
    > something goes nuts and starts writing large quantities of data, either
    > to a log file, or temp files.


    Yes, I have read this argument before. In my opinion, if some process starts
    filling a partition with log files, you will have to fix it from a rescue
    system anyway, independently whether the concerned partition is /
    or /var/log/.

    >>as it's very unpractical to change partitioning
    >>afterwards, in case one of your partitions should fill up.

    >
    > There's no problem with that if you use LVM and leave some space unused.


    Also true, but I haven't got any experience with LVM, so I prefer keep
    things as simple as possible. Are LVM setups easy to fix from a rescue CD Ã*
    la Knoppix?

    > [0] As well as separate /opt /usr /var /usr/local and /srv.


    /srv might make sense, as it contains the data of your website, f. ex. I
    wondre why FHS is not locating these data somewhere in /home/httpd/, for
    example.

    With regards,
    Hendric

    --
    Hendric Stattmann, Mödling, Austria. Registered Linux User #178879
    For e-mail contact, please use

  12. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    Hendric Stattmann wrote:
    > David Bolt wrote:
    >
    > Yes, I have read this argument before. In my opinion, if some process starts
    > filling a partition with log files, you will have to fix it from a rescue
    > system anyway, independently whether the concerned partition is /
    > or /var/log/.


    Somebody adviced me once to put /tmp in memory or on a seperate
    partition. I tried and rand into probblems pretty fast. To me it is
    simpel and the reason _I_ do not devide partitions, or at least I would
    not want to, because I do and I disagree with myself on why.

    For the sake of argument, asume you have 1 GB of diskspacve available.
    The moment you split up that partition, you will have only 500MB
    available for whatever partition you are using.

    So where /tmp had 1GB, it now has only 500MB

    Say you make a CD and use /tmp for it. In the first case your 700MB will
    work without a problem. In the second it won't.

    Obviously you can see that you have 1GB in tmp available, but then you
    have nothing more in /.
    yet no matter how you do it, you will be deviding your HD space.

    In todays world with 1TB HD's, it does not realy matter much.

    houghi
    --
    This was written under the influence of the following:
    | Artist : Boudewijn de Groot
    | Song : Een wonderkind van 50 (Leidsekade live)
    | Album : Wonderkind aan het strand (CD 4: Onderstroom)

  13. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    houghi wrote:

    > The thing I still miss is where to place shared data. Obviously you can
    > place it anywhere you like, but it would be nice if there were a
    > standard on where to put shared data.


    Hi houghi,

    System-wide shared data belongs do /usr/share/programname.
    My Video/Audio/Picture archive is located under /home/media/. There exists a
    specific user account for this dir, and its $HOME is group
    readable/writeable (660 / 770). All other home dirs are only 600 / 700.

    My distributed computing stuff is located in and executed from a specific
    user account named "dc".

    Does this sound reasonable to you?

    My question regarding file system hierarchy is why isn't there
    a /home/$USER/etc/ dir for the user-specific configuration files? My $HOME
    is messed with tons of .hidden files, which I really dislike.

    Hendric
    --
    Hendric Stattmann, Mödling, Austria. Registered Linux User #178879
    For e-mail contact, please use

  14. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    Hendric Stattmann wrote:
    > houghi wrote:
    >
    >> The thing I still miss is where to place shared data. Obviously you can
    >> place it anywhere you like, but it would be nice if there were a
    >> standard on where to put shared data.

    >
    > System-wide shared data belongs do /usr/share/programname.


    I am aware of that. However I was talking about user data, not program
    data.

    > My Video/Audio/Picture archive is located under /home/media/. There exists a
    > specific user account for this dir, and its $HOME is group
    > readable/writeable (660 / 770). All other home dirs are only 600 / 700.


    Ok, so you have a specific user called media? Why? I am looking at multi
    user enviroments. e.g. you perhaps have a directory
    /home/media/disney+kids
    and /home/media/velvet+private¹
    Both should have different rights for different groups.

    > My distributed computing stuff is located in and executed from a specific
    > user account named "dc".
    >
    > Does this sound reasonable to you?


    If _you_ are happy with it, it is reasonable.
    However that still does not solve the fact that there is no default as
    to where to put shared files.
    e.g. for a company. It would be nice to have a default by standard like
    /shared where you then can place subdirectories as you desire.

    Yes, I know it is possible to place it anywhere. A standard would make
    such more sence.

    > My question regarding file system hierarchy is why isn't there
    > a /home/$USER/etc/ dir for the user-specific configuration files? My $HOME
    > is messed with tons of .hidden files, which I really dislike.


    +1 insightfull

    ¹Wherever you go, go Private!
    houghi
    --
    This was written under the influence of the following:
    | Artist : Frank Zappa
    | Song : If only she woulda
    | Album : You are what You is

  15. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    Hello houghi,

    houghi wrote:

    > Ok, so you have a specific user called media? Why? I am looking at multi
    > user enviroments. e.g. you perhaps have a directory
    > /home/media/disney+kids
    > and /home/media/velvet+private¹
    > Both should have different rights for different groups.


    I understand that things might become increasingly complicated if not all
    data in /home/media/ is intended for all users on the system. In your case,
    it might become necessary to put adult users in a specific group,
    e.g. "adultusers" instead of "users", then attribute directories containing
    non-disney stuff to "adultusers" group, with appropriate 770 / 660 access
    rights. More fine-grained access rights should be a case for ACL's.

    > [Distributed Computing stuff located in separate user directory]
    > If _you_ are happy with it, it is reasonable.
    > However that still does not solve the fact that there is no default as
    > to where to put shared files.


    /usr/share/ was not the right place imho, since the program was not supposed
    to be executed under root rights. I have no solution for your problem.

    > Yes, I know it is possible to place it anywhere. A standard would make
    > such more sence.


    ACK.

    >> /home/$USER/etc/

    > +1 insightfull


    OK, so should we submit it as a whish to lsb.org, or whatever organization
    is responsable for file hierarchy standard?

    Hendric
    --
    Hendric Stattmann, Mödling, Austria. Registered Linux User #178879
    For e-mail contact, please use

  16. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    Hendric Stattmann wrote:
    >> Ok, so you have a specific user called media? Why? I am looking at multi
    >> user enviroments. e.g. you perhaps have a directory
    >> /home/media/disney+kids
    >> and /home/media/velvet+private¹
    >> Both should have different rights for different groups.

    >
    > I understand that things might become increasingly complicated if not all
    > data in /home/media/ is intended for all users on the system. In your case,
    > it might become necessary to put adult users in a specific group,
    > e.g. "adultusers" instead of "users", then attribute directories containing
    > non-disney stuff to "adultusers" group, with appropriate 770 / 660 access
    > rights. More fine-grained access rights should be a case for ACL's.


    Obviously different groups and directories should be made.

    >> [Distributed Computing stuff located in separate user directory]
    >> If _you_ are happy with it, it is reasonable.
    >> However that still does not solve the fact that there is no default as
    >> to where to put shared files.

    >
    > /usr/share/ was not the right place imho, since the program was not supposed
    > to be executed under root rights. I have no solution for your problem.


    The simple solution is to place it in whatever directory you desire that
    is low enough and have the correct rights. Something like /shared_data
    or whatever you name it. And that is my 'complaint', there is no default
    called /shared_data

    >> Yes, I know it is possible to place it anywhere. A standard would make
    >> such more sence.

    >
    > ACK.
    >
    >>> /home/$USER/etc/

    >> +1 insightfull

    >
    > OK, so should we submit it as a whish to lsb.org, or whatever organization
    > is responsable for file hierarchy standard?


    It will be shot down because it will be too complicated to change all
    programs to look in ~/etc/ instead of ~/
    The same will probably happen wot something like /shared_data

    If somebody knows where we should fo with this, please let it know. I
    will then see what those people will say about the ideas.

    houghi
    --
    Theologians can pursuade themselves of anything. Anyone who can worship
    a trinity and insists that his religion is a monotheism can believe
    anything -- just give him time to rationalize it.
    Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice

  17. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    larry meinte:

    > SUSE likes to put root and home on different partitions. Some distros
    > like to separate /boot also. If you have only one hard drive, what is
    > the advantage/disadvange of this vs. all on one partition?


    On a desktop system for a single user it doesn't make much sense to
    separate home from root.
    In a multiuser environment you usually want to run quota on /home. In this
    case without separation you would have to setup quota for the whole system
    which will slow down your system services.

    Separating /boot on its own partition is necessary if the boot-loader
    doesn't recognize the file system of root. In "ancient times" one reason
    could be an old BIOS with 1024-cyl-barrier. Today this happens usually in
    PXE-boot-environments or if a file system like JFFS or SquashFS is used as
    root which aren't supported by the boot-loader like grub on stage 1.5.

    --
    Gruss,
    Tobias.


  18. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    Hendric Stattmann meinte:

    >> There's no problem with that if you use LVM and leave some space
    >> unused.


    > Also true, but I haven't got any experience with LVM, so I prefer keep
    > things as simple as possible. Are LVM setups easy to fix from a rescue
    > CD à la Knoppix?


    Don't know if Knoppix is supporting it but Suse-Rescue does. LVM2 is easy
    to repair because it is "self-documenting" its layout and will get
    recognized automatically by most modern Linux kernels. This is very
    similar to Linux-RAID with its copy of the layout on every stripe.


    >> [0] As well as separate /opt /usr /var /usr/local and /srv.


    > /srv might make sense, as it contains the data of your website, f. ex. I
    > wondre why FHS is not locating these data somewhere in /home/httpd/, for
    > example.


    home is for users and Apache is a service. As there exists the possibility
    of special treatment for user-owned webpages it might be confusing to put
    ServerRoot oder DocumentRoot in the same hierarchy as user's directories.

    Apache is using many directories. Just to give you an idea of possible
    locations for DocumentRoot:
    http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout.

    --
    Gruss,
    Tobias.


  19. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    houghi wrote:

    >> OK, so should we submit it as a whish to lsb.org, or whatever
    >> organization is responsable for file hierarchy standard?

    >
    > It will be shot down because it will be too complicated to change all
    > programs to look in ~/etc/ instead of ~/
    > The same will probably happen wot something like /shared_data
    >
    > If somebody knows where we should fo with this, please let it know. I
    > will then see what those people will say about the ideas.
    >


    As /home is usually the largest part of the disk I use /home/share as shared
    directory. That place has some logic as it is shared place for all users
    some kind of everybody's home.

    --
    Regards, Rajko
    http://en.opensuse.org/Portal needs helpful hands.

  20. Re: / /home on different partitions?

    Rajko M. wrote:
    >> If somebody knows where we should fo with this, please let it know. I
    >> will then see what those people will say about the ideas.
    >>

    >
    > As /home is usually the largest part of the disk I use /home/share as shared
    > directory. That place has some logic as it is shared place for all users
    > some kind of everybody's home.


    What I mean is where we can go to get a default inserted into the
    specifics. Wether this will become /home/share, /shared or anything else
    is for later to decide. First we need to be sure people are willing to
    get a shared directory in a standard place in the first place.

    Just like /etc is standard or /root or /var/logs

    houghi
    --
    Theologians can pursuade themselves of anything. Anyone who can worship
    a trinity and insists that his religion is a monotheism can believe
    anything -- just give him time to rationalize it.
    Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast