Newbie parbreastioning question 4353

Yes you did. That is exactly what I was referring to.

There is no need to hope, or even worry about it. That used to be a real problem, 20+ years ago with UNIX SysVR2.

But they added symlinks in R3... :-)

Also you should carefully review the article posted by I don't use LVM, but I don't disagree with anything he discussed. It is, IMHO, just as viable as the arrangement that I've suggested.

The point is that if something does fill up, it *won't* bring down the system; and that protects the system against a number of accidental problems buttociated with sharing files across a network. It also makes upgrading the OS easy.

As noted, he can split it anyway he wants, *for* user convenience... and system security and ease of administration.

That is easy, but it is also just plain dumb.

The other option is to do what the OP said he wanted to do, and learn how to use the facilities available. There simply is no concern about having the sizes right.

For example, ifusr needs more space... putusr-X11R6 into a different parbreastion and symlink it back tousr-X11R6. There is your space. (Note that I suggested movingopt tousr-opt in exactly that way. It could moved tolocal-opt orthisismyspareparbreastionwithanextra200Gb-opt just as easily!

If that is true (I'm not familiar with the Debian distribution), then clearly what he can do is reduce the size of theusr parbreastion appropriately, and basically get the same effect. Though I would suggest that your numbers are over optimistic, and do not allow for any usage invar orhome. That may nearly be true on some systems, but not on most. If the OP thinks that will be true on his system, he can reduce the size of those parbreastions too. In fact though, I think reserving a couple of gigs for the system rather than the server clients, even on a small 10 Gb disk, is worth doing.

--