Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Jul 1999 08:39:55 +1000 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: Partition Sizing |
| |
Zack Weinberg writes: > > Richard Gooch writes: > > Zack Weinberg writes: > > > In addition, you should symlink /tmp to /var/tmp and audit your rc > > > scripts to make sure they don't need /tmp before /var is mounted. > > > All modern distros I've tried get this right. > > > > Why not just have /tmp a separate FS? > > I don't see any advantage of that over linking /tmp to /var/tmp. > The only issue with not having /tmp on the root filesystem is if > it's needed before the rest of the filesystems are mounted, and > you'd have the same problem with a separate /tmp or a symlink.
OK, fair enough. I had originally read it as "/tmp -> /var/tmp is better than mount /tmp". I guess you weren't saying that.
I personally prefer a separate /tmp so that dumb users don't accidentally fill up /var (/var/spool, /var/log and so on).
> > > It would be nice to be able to mount / ro and nosuid, but you can't > > > do that because there tend to be a few suid executables in /bin, you > > > frequently need to modify files in /etc, and login/logout needs to > > > modify permissions on /dev nodes. devfs plus lots of symlinks may > > > be able to correct this. > > > > You don't need any symlinks with the standard devfs configuration > > (devfs mounted on /dev). What makes you think you do? > > Not for /dev - for the frequently modified files in /etc, like > /etc/shadow (assuming you make people change passwords regularly...)
Ah, OK. Another misunderstanding.
Regards,
Richard....
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |