On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 22:10, Short SrA Christopher wrote:
> Follow on to Linux Partitioning:
>
> I've been getting some mixed signals about whether or not to actually put
> /tmp in a separate partition or not. When answering this question keep in
> mind that this is for a home desktop PC.
>
> I honestly think that /tmp being in its own partition would keep
> fragmentation down but it could have some negative side effects when /tmp
> files up. What do you folks think? What would be a safe size?
There are a lot of arguments for and against putting /tmp on a separate
filesystem. IMHO, for a home system it's not worth the hassle.
On a server you separate /tmp so someone can't fill it with junk to
deliberately crash the system. You can, however, allocate reserve space
that users cannot touch. On that same note, on a server you could make
the argument to separate /var so that logs, rpm databases, spools, and
so forth don't accidentally fill the filesystem. When I administered Sun
E6500s and E10Ks I'd usually separate /var, /usr/local, /home, /opt,
/tmp, and /export.
For a home system you (generally) don't have multiple disks.
Partitioning thus would require some measure of precognition to know
what you intend to install further on down the road (or use something
like LVM - Linux Volume Manager). So if you partition /tmp to be large
you may end up with not enough space for your / root partition but gobs
of space in /tmp. So for a typical desktop I only put /home on a
separate partition. THis makes upgrades simple and makes the root
partition as flexible as possible.
-- Kwan Lowe <kwan@digitalhermit.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:42:42 EDT