Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by wroo » Wed, 09 May 2001 07:17:40



Hi,

Does it really make sense to create /usr/local or /opt or /tmp or /var?
If I run Debian Potato or Redhat6.2 and install
KDE2 or other software that is ahead of its distribution in /opt or
/usr/local (separate partition) instead of installing it with all other
software, will I be
a) more happy
b) less happy?

I'm asking this because it's not trivial to me how Debian, for example,
will update Pototo if I have KDE2 on it.

Thanks

Wroot

 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by Solar Eclips » Wed, 09 May 2001 08:48:52


Advantage to making such partitions:
If you must reinstall the OS, you won't lose the data in those partitions.
Disadvantage:
The size of the partitions is inflexible and if you end up finding that you
put too much into /var and /opt and not enough into /usr/local and /tmp, you
might find yourself very frustrated.
My first time installing Linux, I made all these partitions as recommended
and ended up regretting it for the above reason.  I had all kinds of space
in partitions I didn't even know about and in no time ran out of space for
my MP3s!
I suggest you keep it down to one or two partitions plus a partition for
swap space.
Back up your data often (a good idea in general...though I myself don't
follow it) and it won't matter so much if you lose the information that
would have been protected by being in their own partitions.
And yet, I am but an egg when it comes to Linux, and I encourage you to get
a second opinion from somebody who knows more.
However, that has been my experience.
-A


Quote:> Hi,

> Does it really make sense to create /usr/local or /opt or /tmp or /var?
> If I run Debian Potato or Redhat6.2 and install
> KDE2 or other software that is ahead of its distribution in /opt or
> /usr/local (separate partition) instead of installing it with all other
> software, will I be
> a) more happy
> b) less happy?

> I'm asking this because it's not trivial to me how Debian, for example,
> will update Pototo if I have KDE2 on it.

> Thanks

> Wroot


 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by Stanislaw Flatt » Wed, 09 May 2001 09:54:32


Welcome to Linux-land!
Judging by the question, you are a tourist, learning your way around.
Not knowing what will be the usage of the system, there is NO definitive
answer.
For about three years mine installs included only two partitions swap and
root, till I knew enough where I need more and what is not used.
And the usual mistakes on the way.
But it IS part of the fun.
So:

Have fun.

Stanislaw.
Slack user from Ulladulla.


> Hi,

> Does it really make sense to create /usr/local or /opt or /tmp or /var?
> If I run Debian Potato or Redhat6.2 and install
> KDE2 or other software that is ahead of its distribution in /opt or
> /usr/local (separate partition) instead of installing it with all other
> software, will I be
> a) more happy
> b) less happy?

> I'm asking this because it's not trivial to me how Debian, for example,
> will update Pototo if I have KDE2 on it.

> Thanks

> Wroot

 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by Gordon.Haverl.. » Wed, 09 May 2001 22:32:35


On Tue, 08 May 2001 10:54:32 +1000, Stanislaw Flatto


>> Does it really make sense to create /usr/local or /opt or /tmp or /var?

/usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var do not have to be on separate
partitions, they can just be directories (with the appropriate
permissions) on the root (/) filesystem.  /tmp and /var must be
present in some form (either as directories or partitions), you might
get by without a /usr/local or /opt.  But the reason for the last 2 is
places for you to store "locally installed" software.  If you never
install anything outside of what the distribution allows for, you may
never use /usr/local or /opt.  But even in that case, you aren't
losing any space, so why worry about it?

Gord

 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by wroo » Thu, 10 May 2001 00:13:14


Are there any reasons to have /boot on a separate partition?

Wroot

 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by cbbro.. » Thu, 10 May 2001 00:46:34



> Are there any reasons to have /boot on a separate partition?

.. Because you can then have a tiny /boot partition that is normally
mounted read-only, which effectively eliminates any need _ever_ to do
an unclean fsck of it.

Furthermore, if it's normally read-only, then would-be nefarious
no-gooders trying to hack your system may find it more challenging to
get their favorite kernel hack put in...

--

http://vip.hex.net/~cbbrowne/resume.html
Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by Lee All » Thu, 10 May 2001 01:25:41




Quote:>Advantage to making such partitions:
>If you must reinstall the OS, you won't lose the data in those partitions.
>Disadvantage:
>The size of the partitions is inflexible and if you end up finding that you
>put too much into /var and /opt and not enough into /usr/local and /tmp, you
>might find yourself very frustrated.
>My first time installing Linux, I made all these partitions as recommended
>and ended up regretting it for the above reason.  I had all kinds of space
>in partitions I didn't even know about and in no time ran out of space for
>my MP3s!
>I suggest you keep it down to one or two partitions plus a partition for
>swap space.
>Back up your data often (a good idea in general...though I myself don't
>follow it) and it won't matter so much if you lose the information that
>would have been protected by being in their own partitions.
>And yet, I am but an egg when it comes to Linux, and I encourage you to get
>a second opinion from somebody who knows more.
>However, that has been my experience.
>-A

Good answer, to which I would add the following advantages to separate
partitions:

A misbehaving program could fill up /var (too many log entries) or
/tmp (too many temp files).  It's nice when this doesn't render your /
(root) filesystem useless.

Similarly, if your system should crash or be powered down during use,
the more frequently modified filesystem is more likely to be
corrupted.  So maybe /var gets damaged but / is okay.

And I will amplify the disadvantage given by -A: you will not allocate
space to these filesystems correctly, and one of them will fill up
when others are nearly empty.

- Show quoted text -



>> Hi,

>> Does it really make sense to create /usr/local or /opt or /tmp or /var?
>> If I run Debian Potato or Redhat6.2 and install
>> KDE2 or other software that is ahead of its distribution in /opt or
>> /usr/local (separate partition) instead of installing it with all other
>> software, will I be
>> a) more happy
>> b) less happy?

>> I'm asking this because it's not trivial to me how Debian, for example,
>> will update Pototo if I have KDE2 on it.

>> Thanks

>> Wroot

 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by Anita Lew » Thu, 10 May 2001 06:28:53



> Hi,

> Does it really make sense to create /usr/local or /opt or /tmp or /var?
> If I run Debian Potato or Redhat6.2 and install
> KDE2 or other software that is ahead of its distribution in /opt or
> /usr/local (separate partition) instead of installing it with all other
> software, will I be
> a) more happy
> b) less happy?

> I'm asking this because it's not trivial to me how Debian, for example,
> will update Pototo if I have KDE2 on it.

> Thanks

> Wroot

You might be less happy if you make the wrong determination on the size
these partitions need to be and have to try to make one larger.  The only
partition that I think it makes sense to have separate is /home.  The reason
for that is so that if you have to do a reinstall, you have all your files
in a separate partition and won't overwrite them.  It is hard to figure out
how big to make these partitions, because you don't know what will be going
on them.  I say make swap, /home and the rest goes on a big /.

Anita

 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by Peter T. Breue » Thu, 10 May 2001 06:42:29



> You might be less happy if you make the wrong determination on the size
> these partitions need to be and have to try to make one larger.  The only

There's no problem with that. It's a work of a few moments with parted,
or of a few minutes using the classical fdisk/mke2fs/tar method! Or
one can play with md and/or lfs for even more flexibility.

Quote:> partition that I think it makes sense to have separate is /home.  The reason

And /var (and /usr and /usr/local and /opt and / and /boot and
/usr/share and /usr/X11R6 ...).

Quote:> for that is so that if you have to do a reinstall, you have all your files
> in a separate partition and won't overwrite them.  It is hard to figure out
> how big to make these partitions, because you don't know what will be going

What's the problem with this?

Quote:> on them.  I say make swap, /home and the rest goes on a big /.

Of course you know how big they are going to be! /usr/share will be
about 300MB, /usr will be about 600GB, /var will be about 128MB used
and 500MB of empty space. /usr/X11R6 will be about 64MB. You make it
sound as though nobody in the entire world had ever installed a
distribution for you to look at  ...  and you yourself can do it once
to see, then tar it up and untar it over the partitions put in the
right place. For that, you just need a / of 128MB and a var of 512MB
and call it a day with those plus /usr and /home any size you feel
like from 600MB up to 4GB. And in any case, doing it twice is well
under par for the course!

Peter

 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by BillEB.. » Thu, 10 May 2001 07:33:10



beer on the keyboard and the resulting short-circuit sent this:

Quote:>Hi,

>Does it really make sense to create /usr/local or /opt or /tmp or /var?
>If I run Debian Potato or Redhat6.2 and install
>KDE2 or other software that is ahead of its distribution in /opt or
>/usr/local (separate partition) instead of installing it with all other
>software, will I be
>a) more happy
>b) less happy

It's a dilemma. Of course, it depends on whether you're a newbie or an
experiened user. Why? Because a newbie has no idea how big these
partitions need to be and so either runs out of disk space on one or
another partition due to this (understandable) bad planning or wastes
a lot of space with partitions that are way too big. If you're an
experienced user, you'll look at your current installation and see how
much data is in each, and partition accordingly. So my advice is like
Vanderbilt's response to someone who asked him how much his yacht
cost. He said, "If you have to ask, you can't afford it." In this
case, if you have to ask, use the fewest partitions the install
program allows until you get to know Linux better. You'll know when
you know enough to decide partitioning for yourself: you'll understand
it.

Quote:>I'm asking this because it's not trivial to me how Debian, for example,
>will update Pototo if I have KDE2 on it.

AFAIK, Not Debian nor any other distro cares whether the directories
are on a separate partition or not. Or am I missing something in your
question?
 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by Jeff » Thu, 10 May 2001 10:32:02


On my first Linux install, I made a separate /opt partition and quickly
regretted it because I had no clue as to the best partition size for my
situation and I ran out of room really fast! These days, I stick to just
3 for my home system: /, /boot and swap.

At the office, on the other hand, I ran into instances where a single
user would begin to use up all of the available disk space and here it
made plenty of sense to make /home it's own partition or even one or more
addtiional hard drives.

Jeff S



> Hi,
> Does it really make sense to create /usr/local or /opt or /tmp or /var?
> If I run Debian Potato or Redhat6.2 and install KDE2 or other software
> that is ahead of its distribution in /opt or /usr/local (separate
> partition) instead of installing it with all other software, will I be
> a) more happy
> b) less happy?
> I'm asking this because it's not trivial to me how Debian, for example,
> will update Pototo if I have KDE2 on it.  Thanks
> Wroot

 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by Martin Gregor » Thu, 10 May 2001 18:00:29




Quote:>You might be less happy if you make the wrong determination on the size
>these partitions need to be and have to try to make one larger.  The only
>partition that I think it makes sense to have separate is /home.  The reason
>for that is so that if you have to do a reinstall, you have all your files
>in a separate partition and won't overwrite them.  It is hard to figure out
>how big to make these partitions, because you don't know what will be going
>on them.  I say make swap, /home and the rest goes on a big /.

I agree with that approach.

I accepted the RH 6.2 default partition assignments (easy Linux newbie
decision) except that I made /usr/local a link to /home/local (not a
user, just a directory) so that, if I just back up /home I *know* that
I have got all locally developed stuff.

The rest of the system only needs backing up after a configuration
change or an upgrade.

--

com       | +44 020 76379111

 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by Gordon.Haverl.. » Thu, 10 May 2001 21:57:56



>Are there any reasons to have /boot on a separate partition?

There used to be.  When BIOSs had problems reaching past cylinder 1024
to find a kernel when booting, you could put your kernel in a small
"boot" partition that was close to the beginning of the disk.  A
common arrangement would have been a small boot partition at the
beginning, then Windoze (or some other OS taking up more than 1024
cylinders), then your minimal swap and linux partitions.

These days, about the only reason to have boot on a separate partition
is so that you can have /boot unmounted most of the time, and possibly
a little safer with respect to corrupting your kernel images by some
kind of filesystem problem.

Gord

 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by wroo » Fri, 11 May 2001 02:19:19



> These days, about the only reason to have boot on a separate partition
> is so that you can have /boot unmounted most of the time, and possibly
> a little safer with respect to corrupting your kernel images by some
> kind of filesystem problem.

Do you put this into your startup scripts or something?
mount -t ext2 /dev/boot /boot  -o remount ro
AFAIR, I always had normally mounted /boot on Linux

Wroot

 
 
 

Do I need /usr/local, /opt, /tmp and /var partitions?

Post by TRY » Wed, 16 May 2001 04:56:22


wroot wrote ...

Quote:>Hi,

>Does it really make sense to create /usr/local or /opt or /tmp or /var?
>If I run Debian Potato or Redhat6.2 and install
>KDE2 or other software that is ahead of its distribution in /opt or
>/usr/local (separate partition) instead of installing it with all other
>software, will I be
>a) more happy
>b) less happy?

>I'm asking this because it's not trivial to me how Debian, for example,
>will update Pototo if I have KDE2 on it.

>Thanks

>Wroot

I'm not quite sure of your question, but if you ask whether you must have
/usr/local, /opt, /tmp or /var on separate partitions to make your programs
happy, the answer is no. If you ask whether /usr/local, /opt, /tmp or /var
should exist as subdirectories on your machine, the answer is yes.

Presuming your question pertains to partitions only, I can tell you that
partitioning is mostly used on larger systems (often with quotas too) to
protect the base system against malicious/rogue programs/users, as a program
can easily eat up all remaining disk space, leaving nothing for the base
system which may then die a horible death (at least crash :-). It is, of
course, less necessary to keep things on separate partitions, if you are
having a system used pre*ely by yourself and maybe som trusted users
(friends?) too -- but nothing restrains you from doing so.

Depending on the usage and disk sizes, I often make /tmp and /var separate
partitions as /tmp is used for temporary files that may well grow to
unspeakable sizes in certain circumstances and as /var contains log files
that may (for instance due to some error) grow almost unlimited. If the
system is multiuser, I often create /home on a separate partition too or
(which is somewhat slower for the system (and for you too), but gives better
granularity to each user's individual needs) use quotas.

I hope this is the answer you looked for.

  /TRY