From: Adametz, Bluejay (bluejay@fujigreenwood.com)
Date: Thu Jul 25 2002 - 11:06:31 EDT
This generated some interesting replies. The original question was:
> I'm configuring a system now, and I have a choice.
>
> This is a small, single-application system. There are two user directories
> (call 'em /usr/users/foo and /usr/users/bar) that will need more space
than
> can be provided on the system disk. The system has an additional 9gb disk
> (call it dsk1) that we will use for these two directories.
>
> The question is, which would be better?
>
> a. Create two filesets on dsk1 and mount them at /usr/users/foo and
> /usr/users/bar mount points?
>
> b. Create one file set on dsk1 and symlink /usr/users/foo and
/usr/users/bar
> to directories in that one fileset?
The key points that came out of this were:
a. symlinks would provide more flexibility should things change.
b. Using two mount points would have a slight speed advantage, by avoiding
the extra step of translating the symlink.
c. Using two mount points will make it easier to see which directory is
chewing up the space, just by using df.
d. Using the two filesets would make it easier to add/relocate the stuff
should the needs increase.
e. There was a suggestion to partition dsk1 and build separate file systems,
but I'd rather pool the space.
So, I think I'll go with the two filesets and mount points (option a).
Thanks for all your input.
- Bluejay Adametz
Definition: Spudrubble n. Unclaimed french fries at the bottom of a fast
food bag.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:48:47 EDT