Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:59:44 +1030 | From | David Newall <> | Subject | Re: RFC: permit link(2) to work across --bind mounts ? |
| |
dean gaudet wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote: > >> Mark Lord wrote: >> >>> But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems, >>> where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working. >>> >> I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying filesystem. >> If you need to make it on the bound mount, that is, if you can't locate the >> underlying filesystem to make the hard link, you can use a symbolic link. >> > > i run into it on a system where /home is a bind mount of /var/home ... i > did this because: > > - i prefer /home to be nosuid,nodev (multi-user system) >
Whatever security /home has, /var/home is the one that restricts because users can still access their files that way.
> - i prefer /home to not be on same fs as / > - the system has only one raid1 array, and i can't stand having two > writable filesystems competing on the same set of spindles (i like to > imagine that one fs competing for the spindles can potentially result > in better seek patterns) > ... > - i didn't want to try to balance disk space between /var and /home > - i didn't want to use a volume mgr just to handle disk space balance... >
Pffuff. That's what volume managers are for! You do have (at least) two independent spindles in your RAID1 array, which give you less need to worry about head-stack contention. You probably want different mount restrictions on /home than /var, so you really must use separate filesystems. LVM is your friend.
But with regards to bind mounts and hard links: If you want to be able to hard-link /home/me/log to /var/tmp/my-log, then I see nothing to prevent hard-linking /var/home/me/log to /var/tmp/my-log.
I think it's possible to be too precious about preserving the illusion of one file-system structure when the reality is something different. Don't lose site of reality.
| |