On Tue, 2002-09-10 at 12:42, Smitty wrote:
> I am going to transfer data from an old to a new harddrive. The new one is
> double (40 gb) the size of the old (20 gb). The old has four partitions, one
> for /, one for /boot, one for /home and one for swap. I believe these are
> all primary partitions. I would like to have more partitions, namely one for
> /var and /tmp together. Am I correct that I would need to use extended
> partitions rather than primary?
Yes. You could do 4 primary partitions or 3 primary and an extended
partition with a theoretically unlimited number of logical partitions.
> Do extended partitions create any corruption problems for data as opposed to
> primary partitions?
Not from my experience.
> I noticed Russ Herrold puts each directory on a seperate extended partition.
> Does this have advantages over keeping /bin, /sbin, /lib, /etc/, /usr, and
> /opt together on the / partition?
Not necessarily. Everyone has their file-system layout preferences. I am
a /, /usr, /var, and /home kind of guy. Separating mount points
logically on multiple partitions is great when scheduling varying file
system dumps to tape. I believe someone in a previous thread already
mentioned that some mount points (/, /bin, /sbin, /etc) have more
persistent data, and therefore do not always need daily backups.
-- Matt Miller Systems Administrator MP TotalCare gpg public key id: 08BC7B06
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:11:55 EDT