And I'd move all that personal stuff from XP
to /home just leaving the windows only stuff on NTFS.
On 21/12/16 09:10, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Le 21/12/2016 à 02:55, Aragorn a écrit :However the modern use of SSDs and serious RAM changes the dynamic:
A separate filesystem allows for different mount options. "ro" is one
of them, albeit not the only one. ;)
Or a separate filesystem type.
access times are pretty much the same whatever part is accessed.
And swap is seldom accessed so that just about everything that is seldom written can go on SSD.
leaving massive spinning rust for the moving data, if you think SSDS
won't like being constantly written to. Or can't afford it for 'large
data'.
My point? Most (but not all, it is accepted) of the reasons for
partitioning into smaller chunks have ceased to be meaningful.
Le 21/12/2016 à 01:46, Trenbidia a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:27:18 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it >>> read-only.
Or if you have multiple hard drives like the original poster. Last time I
had a system with multiple drives, I gave /usr its own drive and things
ran faster.
Faster than /usr in the / filesystem on its own drive ? I doubt it,
because there is not much in a typical system that needs heavy
concurrent access in / and /usr.
My point? Most (but not all, it is accepted) of the reasons for
partitioning into smaller chunks have ceased to be meaningful.
On 2016-12-21 08:09, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Le 21/12/2016 à 01:46, Trenbidia a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:27:18 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it >>>> read-only.
Or if you have multiple hard drives like the original poster. Last time I >>> had a system with multiple drives, I gave /usr its own drive and things
ran faster.
Faster than /usr in the / filesystem on its own drive ? I doubt it,
because there is not much in a typical system that needs heavy
concurrent access in / and /usr.
Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of
/bin and /lib to /usr.
Le 21/12/2016 à 01:46, Trenbidia a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:27:18 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it >>> read-only.
Or if you have multiple hard drives like the original poster. Last time I
had a system with multiple drives, I gave /usr its own drive and things
ran faster.
Faster than /usr in the / filesystem on its own drive ? I doubt it, because there is not much in a typical system that needs heavy concurrent access in / and /usr.
On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-12-21 08:09, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Le 21/12/2016 ?? 01:46, Trenbidia a ??crit :
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:27:18 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
IMO a split /usr filesystem makes sense only if you're going to mount it >>>>> read-only.
Or if you have multiple hard drives like the original poster. Last time I >>>> had a system with multiple drives, I gave /usr its own drive and things >>>> ran faster.
Faster than /usr in the / filesystem on its own drive ? I doubt it,
because there is not much in a typical system that needs heavy
concurrent access in / and /usr.
Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of
/bin and /lib to /usr.
By design, and it's required. It gave me some grief when the decision was made
to do this.
On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <chrisncoxn@endlessnow.com> wrote:
On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of
/bin and /lib to /usr.
By design, and it's required.
No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}
Le 27/12/2016 à 22:42, William Unruh a écrit :
On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <chrisncoxn@endlessnow.com> wrote:
On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out
of /bin and /lib to /usr.
Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
has moved to /usr ?
By design, and it's required.
What's by design ? Required by what ?
No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}
Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
early boot.
Le 27/12/2016 ? 22:42, William Unruh a ?crit :
On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <chrisncoxn@endlessnow.com> wrote:
On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of >>>> /bin and /lib to /usr.
Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
has moved to /usr ?
By design, and it's required.
What's by design ? Required by what ?
No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}
Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
early boot.
Le 27/12/2016 à 22:42, William Unruh a écrit :
On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <> wrote:
On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of >>>> /bin and /lib to /usr.
Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
has moved to /usr ?
By design, and it's required.
What's by design ? Required by what ?
No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}
Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
early boot.
On 2016-12-28 00:13, Pascal Hambourg wrote:(...)
Le 27/12/2016 à 22:42, William Unruh a écrit :
On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <> wrote:
On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of >>>>> /bin and /lib to /usr.
Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
has moved to /usr ?
Most of my /bin contains symlinks:
cer@Telcontar:~> l /bin/
total 4940
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 26 15:15 ./
drwxr-xr-x 37 root root 4096 Dec 26 14:10 ../
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:26 arch -> /usr/bin/arch* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Dec 26 14:27 awk -> /etc/alternatives/awk* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Dec 26 14:26 basename -> /usr/bin/basename* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 697816 Oct 18 13:55 bash*
No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}
Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
early boot.
AFAIK, it simple coincided in time with systemd appeareance.
On Wednesday 28 December 2016 00:13, Pascal Hambourg conveyed the
following to comp.os.linux.setup...
Le 27/12/2016 à 22:42, William Unruh a écrit :
On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <chrisncoxn@endlessnow.com> wrote:
On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out
of /bin and /lib to /usr.
Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
has moved to /usr ?
This is largely distribution-dependent, but a number of distributions
have for a while already begun making /bin, /sbin and /lib* into
symbolic links to their counterparts under /usr, and some other
distributions ─ e.g. Debian ─ are now preparing for that merge as well.
It may have been corrected in the meantime, but there was a time a
number of years ago when Poettering and Sievers would put stuff needed
at boot time under /usr/lib* instead of under /lib ─ mostly firmware and some kernel modules.
Granted, that was not part of systemd proper as an init system, but it
was part of udev, and udev had been rolled into the systemd package.
Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
early boot.
Maybe not anymore, but it used to ─ see above.
Le 28/12/2016 à 02:20, Carlos E. R. a écrit :
On 2016-12-28 00:13, Pascal Hambourg wrote:(...)
Le 27/12/2016 à 22:42, William Unruh a écrit :
On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <> wrote:
On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved
out of
/bin and /lib to /usr.
Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
has moved to /usr ?
Most of my /bin contains symlinks:
cer@Telcontar:~> l /bin/
total 4940
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 26 15:15 ./
drwxr-xr-x 37 root root 4096 Dec 26 14:10 ../
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:26 arch -> /usr/bin/arch*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Dec 26 14:27 awk ->
/etc/alternatives/awk*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Dec 26 14:26 basename ->
/usr/bin/basename*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 697816 Oct 18 13:55 bash*
Wow. First time I'm seeing this. I just wonder what's the use. A real
/usr merge would be simpler.
What distribution is this ? /etc/alternatives suggests it is a Debian derivative.
In my pure Debian there is no symlink in /bin or /sbin pointing to /usr.
The target of symlinks pointing to /etc/alternatives all are in the same directory, not in /usr.
No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}
Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
early boot.
AFAIK, it simple coincided in time with systemd appeareance.
Correlation does not imply causality.
Le 28/12/2016 ? 02:20, Carlos E. R. a ?crit :
On 2016-12-28 00:13, Pascal Hambourg wrote:(...)
Le 27/12/2016 ? 22:42, William Unruh a ?crit :
On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <> wrote:
On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out of >>>>>> /bin and /lib to /usr.
Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
has moved to /usr ?
Most of my /bin contains symlinks:
cer@Telcontar:~> l /bin/
total 4940
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 26 15:15 ./
drwxr-xr-x 37 root root 4096 Dec 26 14:10 ../
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Dec 26 14:26 arch -> /usr/bin/arch*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Dec 26 14:27 awk -> /etc/alternatives/awk* >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Dec 26 14:26 basename -> /usr/bin/basename* >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 697816 Oct 18 13:55 bash*
Wow. First time I'm seeing this. I just wonder what's the use. A real
/usr merge would be simpler.
What distribution is this ? /etc/alternatives suggests it is a Debian derivative.
In my pure Debian there is no symlink in /bin or /sbin pointing to /usr.
The target of symlinks pointing to /etc/alternatives all are in the same directory, not in /usr.
No it is not required. It is convenient for running systemd, since it
relies on programs traditionally in /usr/{bin,lib}
Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
early boot.
AFAIK, it simple coincided in time with systemd appeareance.
Correlation does not imply causality.
Le 28/12/2016 ?? 01:00, Aragorn a ??crit :
On Wednesday 28 December 2016 00:13, Pascal Hambourg conveyed the
following to comp.os.linux.setup...
Le 27/12/2016 ?? 22:42, William Unruh a ??crit :
On 2016-12-27, Chris Cox <chrisncoxn@endlessnow.com> wrote:
On 12/21/2016 07:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Less than some years back, true, because many things have moved out >>>>>> of /bin and /lib to /usr.
Care to provide any example of something that was in /bin or /lib and
has moved to /usr ?
This is largely distribution-dependent, but a number of distributions
have for a while already begun making /bin, /sbin and /lib* into
symbolic links to their counterparts under /usr, and some other
distributions ??? e.g. Debian ??? are now preparing for that merge as well.
You are now talking about the "/usr merge", which merges *everything* in /bin, /sbin and /lib* with their /usr counterparts. So anything that was present in /bin is still present in /bin (although /bin becomes a
symlink pointing to /usr/bin) and also present in /usr/bin. It is a different subject.
It may have been corrected in the meantime, but there was a time a
number of years ago when Poettering and Sievers would put stuff needed
at boot time under /usr/lib* instead of under /lib ??? mostly firmware and >> some kernel modules.
Granted, that was not part of systemd proper as an init system, but it
was part of udev, and udev had been rolled into the systemd package.
Kernel modules and firmwares were never part of udev nor systemd. They
are part of the kernel. I don't see how Poettering and Sievers could put somewhere files that do not belong to their software. AFAIK, kernel
modules have always been installed in /lib. I remember seing firmware
files installed in /usr/ by Debian once, but that was a long time before systemd and was corrected in later releases as an obvious mistake.
Why is it convenient ? Systemd does not rely on anything in /usr for
early boot.
Maybe not anymore, but it used to ??? see above.
No evidence seen above.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 86:01:46 |
| Calls: | 6,658 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,333,783 |