On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:02:57PM -0600, Phil Mendelsohn wrote: > Well, I haven't seen a corrupted partition in a zillion years, but a > boot and swap partitions are the only ones that I think are keepers. > I would rather have a lot of 2-4GB drives than anything over 10GB. > [Purely personal opinion]. Well, of course. Provided the bus can handle it, you'll get better performance (most of the time) from 10x2G drives than 1x20G drive. But, again, that's comparing apples and oranges. 10 drives are generally better than 1 drive regardless of partitioning scheme. > Does anyone know if symlinks cause additional overhead? I presume not > and that the symlink is in effect when a file/stream is opened, so > there should be no degradation in I/O to a symlink. They shouldn't have any effect once the file is opened. They'll incur a little overhead in initially locating the file, but once it's found, it's accessed at its real location and the symlink is no longer relevant. > > Nice to just add a new 90GB disk and mount it to /home... And once again, > > on a system that is getting no new software, the content of /usr is usually > > static and may be mounted read-only. can't do that if /usr is on the / > > partition. > > Sure can. cp and symlink. Huh? How can you use cp and symlinks to make a read-only section on a filesystem that's mounted read-write? -- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss