alien /usr volume and grml
Hi,
I remember long time ago there will be problem having /usr volume in a separated partition -- back to RedHat 6.0 days, when the system would not boot.
I guess there won't be any problem any more nowadays, but just want to be sure, and know what factors should be considered when making the move. E.g., the last 2 parameters in /etc/fstab (dump & proc) should be 0 0, correct?
How about if I make /usr a symlink to a folder on another volume? E.g., will normal package installation/removal be ok with a symlinked /usr?
Thanks for the comments.
Hi!
On 10/25/2009 08:20 PM, T o n g wrote:
I guess there won't be any problem any more nowadays, but just want to be sure, and know what factors should be considered when making the move. E.g., the last 2 parameters in /etc/fstab (dump & proc) should be 0 0, correct?
There should be absolutely no problem by putting /usr on a seperate partition or LV.
My /usr-line looks like this:
/dev/mapper/nautilus.usr /usr ext3 relatime 0 2
And quoting "man fstab":
,---- | The sixth field, (fs_passno), is used by the fsck(8) program to deter‐ | mine the order in which filesystem checks are done at reboot time. The | root filesystem should be specified with a fs_passno of 1, and other | filesystems should have a fs_passno of 2. Filesystems within a drive | will be checked sequentially, but filesystems on different drives will | be checked at the same time to utilize parallelism available in the | hardware. If the sixth field is not present or zero, a value of zero | is returned and fsck will assume that the filesystem does not need to | be checked. `----
How about if I make /usr a symlink to a folder on another volume? E.g., will normal package installation/removal be ok with a symlinked /usr?
Should work but I would recommend putting /usr in a seperate partition/LV.
Greetings, - Darsha
participants (2)
-
Darshaka Pathirana -
T o n g