Very Computer

Hello,

I would like to give FreeBSD a try after installing Linux a few times.
The partitions I made for linux were:
/
/boot
/usr
/home
/tmp
/opt
/var

Would I do the same thing with FreeBSD?
If not, what would be a typical server patition scheme?
What would be the partitions and their sizes? (9Gb drive).

Thanks a lot, sincerely,

Gil G.

Gil would like to give FreeBSD a try:

Quote:> I would like to give FreeBSD a try after installing Linux a few times.
> The partitions I made for linux were:
> /
> /boot
> /usr
> /home
> /tmp
> /opt
> /var

Hello world.

XxxxBSD does not have a boot partition. /opt-ional software is usually
installes under /usr/local, but you may use /opt as well if you like.
You may keep the partition sizes you had for Linux.

Keep in mind, that BSD operating systems usually have one
fdisk-partition and slice it internally via disklabel.

Have fun. Have success.
Christian

Then I had installed RedHat Linux it is cool enough but it has unpleasant
surprise from Disk Druid.
It creates too many partitions as filesystems (/, /boot, /usr, /home, /tmp,
/opt, /var and probably swap in your case).
FreeBSD requires single partition and so slices how filesystem required (/,
swap, /var, /usr in my case).
Above it Disk Druid creates to many Master Boot Records for next partition
and extend. And don't use all four records in MBR. Only two. For each
partition.
But most ugly the Disk Druid places incorrect offset to MBR. Exclude disk
was empty before RedHat Linux installed.
So if you have existent partition on disk and next you install RedHat Linux
and Disk Druid used the system installed, but using the system looks like
impossible. Linux does not boot.
Disk Druid must be put not only start/finish cylinder/head/sector and size
of partition to MBR, BUT OFFSET TOO.

Quote:> Gil would like to give FreeBSD a try:
> > I would like to give FreeBSD a try after installing Linux a few times.
> > The partitions I made for linux were:
> > /
> > /boot
> > /usr
> > /home
> > /tmp
> > /opt
> > /var

> Hello world.

> XxxxBSD does not have a boot partition. /opt-ional software is usually
> installes under /usr/local, but you may use /opt as well if you like.
> You may keep the partition sizes you had for Linux.

> Keep in mind, that BSD operating systems usually have one
> fdisk-partition and slice it internally via disklabel.

> Have fun. Have success.
> Christian

We've tracked down the source of the following rumour to

Quote:>Hello,

>I would like to give FreeBSD a try after installing Linux a
>few times. The partitions I made for linux were:
>/
>/boot
>/usr
>/home
>/tmp
>/opt
>/var

>Would I do the same thing with FreeBSD?
>If not, what would be a typical server patition scheme?
>What would be the partitions and their sizes? (9Gb drive).

>Thanks a lot, sincerely,

>Gil G.

Note: The following refers to FreeBSD v 4.0, which introduced
simplified disk nomenclature. Earlier versions differ slightly.

If you're going to use the whole disk for FreeBSD and if you're
not worried about coexisting with Gates, just choose the 'A'
option when you get the partitioning ('slicing') screen. This
makes the whole disk available (no waste as with DOS compatible
slices). FreeBSD will call this great slice ad0. Then a program
clicks into gear that you don't have on Linux, which labels the
partitions in this slice. These have letters, which you add to
the slice name (ad0a, ad0b, etc.). By default, a is / (root), b
is swap, c ... don't touch or you'll burn your fingers, d is
left unused, and e onwards are for your other partitions. As a
starting point and purely a matter of personal preference, I'd
consider these partitions (tweak where necessary):

ad0a            /                128M
ad0b            swap             256M
ad0e            /var            1500M
ad0f            /usr            4000M
ad0g            /home           all the rest

A big /var never goes to waste, especially for a server. You can
move stuff there from /usr (database stuff for example).
I'd forget about creating /opt. If you feel you really can't do
without an /opt directory, create it as a soft link to
/usr/local, which is the "official" location for all non-
distribution packages. (Distribution in xxxxBSD terms means
those elements of BSD that make up the Operating System, i.e.,
those parts you choose to install or leave out on installation)
before adding applications.

Note there is no /tmp directory listed here, and it would be
foolish to allow /tmp to sit on the root filesystem. You can get
round this either by soft-linking /tmp to /var/tmp, or in fstab
you can assign /tmp to /dev/ad0b (yes, to the swap partition)
providing you specify the filesystem type as MFS.

Dave

--
Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic? He wanted to believe
in a dog but needed proof.

One of the really nice features of the weird Disk Druid is, that it may
be skipped to use fdisk instead. I personnally prefer to boot the
fabulous SuSE Emergency System from CD to do all fdisk stuff and to
install Linux, XxxxBSD, Solaris or whatever thereafter.

Fun!
Chris

Quote:>Nowadays there is rarely a good reason to
>partition these directories.  There is almost never a good reason
>to partition the root disk.

Hello,

Thanks for the info.
I read that partitioning improves security because, if I recall, some
ways of hacking into a system do not cross filesystems??

Gil.

There is probably some small gain 'cos you can make hard links to
files if they reside on a filesystem which you have write access
to. Thus aranging for all your system stuff to be on partitions
which can't be written to by regular users may help protect you a
little (from programs which can be abused via symlink tricks or
from people stealing links to files they shouldn't have access to).

        David.

|>Then I had installed RedHat Linux it is cool enough but it has unpleasant
|>surprise from Disk Druid.
|>It creates too many partitions as filesystems (/, /boot, /usr, /home, /tmp,
|>/opt, /var and probably swap in your case).
|
|Back in the days of 327MB hard drivers there was a good reason to
|partition /usr and /var, usually because you had to use another
|disk to hold them.  Nowadays there is rarely a good reason to
|partition these directories.  There is almost never a good reason
|to partition the root disk.

1.  Security.  For example, you may want to prevent users from filling
    up / by writing to /tmp or /var/tmp.

2.  Different filesystem optimization.  For example, you might want
    to make some filesystems read only, and some (e.g. /tmp and/or
    /var/tmp) async (and just newfs them at boot time if they don't
    fsck cleanly).

3.  Future OS upgrades.  You may want to keep the OS on separate
    partition(s) from data so that OS upgrades are easier in the
    future.

4.  Backups.  Some backup programs work best on a filesystem basis.
    Partitioning based on frequency of backing up may be done (i.e.
    you may not need to back up the OS, but you may want to back up
    the data every day).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.             netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

|>Nowadays there is rarely a good reason to
|>partition these directories.  There is almost never a good reason
|>to partition the root disk.
|
|Thanks for the info.
|I read that partitioning improves security because, if I recall, some
|ways of hacking into a system do not cross filesystems??

This is mainly for the purpose of keeping user writable directories
(like /tmp, /var/tmp, home directories) separate from more critical
things (like / and /var/log).  Also note that the mail queue and
such may be effectively user writable.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.             netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Except that if you don't partition at all, you will never encounter this
problem. Put everything under /, enable softupdates, and you are fine.

--
Michel Talon

We've tracked down the source of the following rumour to

2000 15:44:13 GMT :

Quote:

>Back in the days of 327MB hard drivers there was a good
>reason to partition /usr and /var, usually because you had to
>use another disk to hold them.  Nowadays there is rarely a
>good reason to partition these directories.  There is almost
>never a good reason to partition the root disk.

...except that it makes things a helluva lot more flexible. I
quite often permutate filesystems between different versions or
even different operating systems. When I used to run Linux, for
example, I used the same /home filesystem for FreeBSD and Linux.  
If you're not a geek, however, you'll probably want to do it the
single partition (i.e. Microsoft) way and save the hotlines
heartaches.

Dave.

--
Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic? He wanted to believe
in a dog but needed proof.

To mail me swing an axe between underscore and dave.

Thanks everyone for all the valuable info!

There is one last thing I wonder about, and it is the location of the
home directory. I have seen /home, /usr/home, etc...
What is best, why? I would think /home makes sense...

Thanks, sincerely,

Gil.

We've tracked down the source of the following rumour to

12:17:37 GMT :

Quote:>Thanks everyone for all the valuable info!

>There is one last thing I wonder about, and it is the
>location of the home directory. I have seen /home, /usr/home,
>etc... What is best, why? I would think /home makes sense...

>Thanks, sincerely,

>Gil.

If you don't create a /home partition but you do create a /usr
partition, then home will go to usr/home to stop filling the
root filesystem up. If you create a separate /home partition or
if you create just one big partition, then home will go to
/home.

Welcome home.

Dave.

--
Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic? He wanted to believe
in a dog but needed proof.

To mail me swing an axe between underscore and dave.

->We've tracked down the source of the following rumour to

->12:17:37 GMT :
->
->>Thanks everyone for all the valuable info!
->>
->>There is one last thing I wonder about, and it is the
->>location of the home directory. I have seen /home, /usr/home,
->>etc... What is best, why? I would think /home makes sense...
->>
->>Thanks, sincerely,
->>
->>Gil.
->>
->
->If you don't create a /home partition but you do create a /usr
->partition, then home will go to usr/home to stop filling the
->root filesystem up. If you create a separate /home partition or
->if you create just one big partition, then home will go to
->/home.
->
->Welcome home.
->
->Dave.
->

Actually, on my FreeBSD 4.0 system, there is only a /usr/home
directory.  The /home is a symb link to /usr/home (since I didn't
create a /home partition).

--
---
Christopher W. Aiken

FreeBSD 4.0 / SuSE Linux 6.4

        /home should not be stored on the root partitiion (unless it is the
only partition). The /home directory is such a common convention that
it should exist and work.

        The out-of-the-box behaviour with FreeBSD is to make /usr/home the
directory and /home a symbolic link to it. This works fine for me. There
is some sense in making /home a partitiion (especially if there are lots of
users.