quotas vs partitions

[David Bandel]

On 11/24/05, R. Quenett <qcal at quen.net> wrote:
> Big foam cluebats, polite or otherwise, solicited and welcome.  :-)
> To start with, I admit that the research isn't done, or really even
> started, yet and what follows are just some preliminary thoughts.
>
> I have been in the habit of using various fairly complex partitioning
> schemes in order to put a hard upper limit on disk useage by such
> things as logfiles etc.  Lately, tho, I've begun to wonder why - and
> if there is a better way, such as disk quotas or some other way, to
> accomplish the same thing.

Ouch.  This had got to be the worst way to enforce limits on logfiles,
particularly since root is writing most log files.  Even root can be
limited, but why would you limit logfiles?  These are important (or
why bother?) and I don't want them stopped at a critical time due to
lack of filesystem space.  Rotation scripts can check sizes
periodically and compress and store the last x number.

>
> In general, the advantages I see for partitioning schemes are that
> they are quick and easy to set up, at least at first, and they are
> very effective in enforcing a hard upper limit, and it may be quite
> difficult or impossible to deal properly with multiple drives without

LVM???

> them.  Also, if one wanted to use more than one type of filesystem
> (why?), they would have to be on separate partitions, wouldn't they?

Yes, usually.  Unless you create files with filesystems on them and mount those.

> It is possible to run different os's on the same partition -
> especially if they are all linux - but multi-boot would likely be
> much easier with multiple partitions.  But for anyone who is trying
> to simplify down to one os, linux of course, this would not be an
> issue.

Each OS should its own native file system.

>
> Among the disadvantages, partitioning schemes seem relatively
> difficult to change, and significantly increase the risk of data loss
> (sometimes for the entire drive) if they are changed.  They also seem
> to substantially complicate and increase the difficulty of managing
> backups.

Not sure how filesystems affect backup management, but, whatever.

>
> Anyway, I'm sure there are a gazillion dis/ad/vantages of each
> approach.  Perhaps some sort of best-of-all-worlds hybrid is possible
> - or maybe the best approach is all one way or the other.  4x, on one
> system I have one 60 gb drive - why not one great big partition plus

and this is insufficient for your needs?

> disk quotas? Then a second drive could be added and mirrored to give
> the best of all worlds in terms of control, simplicity, and data
> security?  Ahhh, if only life were that simple!  Sometimes it is.

Guess I really need more specifics on what you are doing/want to do.

>
> A couple of links (among many) that turned up in a quick preliminary
> search
>
> http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Partition
> http://www.linuxhomenetworking.com/linux-adv/quota.htm
>
> and I'm wondering if these are the best that there are.
>
> I'd be fascinated to read other people's points of view on the
> subject.
>

My point of view is often jaded, sometimes comes from 100 ft in the
air, sometimes from ground level, but is usually unique (or is that
eunuch?).

Ciao,

David A. Bandel
--
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
            - Nemesis Air Racing Team motto