[kwlug-disc] Adding (setting up) 2nd disk.
zixiekat at gmail.com
Tue Jan 26 16:41:14 EST 2010
That's where the 'mount --bind' comes into play, it's not a soft OR
hard link and you can use it in the fstab as well.
Read this link, it's short and tells you what's wrong with soft
linking a directory. Apparently you can't hard link a directory?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:38 PM, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
> Adam Glauser wrote, On 01/26/2010 3:54 PM:
>> unsolicited wrote:
>>> Which is what I originally said, I think. But posed more as a tentative
>>> question than a statement. Guessing.
>> If I've followed the thread correctly, yes.
>>> Can you lay out a command line example? (Getting my head around this.)
>> Again, as I understand it, Raul is suggesting
>> # mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/disk2
>> Now you have /mnt/disk2/home/... and /mnt/disk2/data/...
>> # ln -s /mnt/disk2/home /home
>> # ln -s /mnt/disk2/data /data
>> So 'ls /home' and 'ls /mnt/disk2/home' should now list the same files.
>> I can't say anything about Colin's suggestion, but I agree that it seems
>> to be the same thing.
>> Out of curiosity, why do you want one partition on disk2 instead of a
>> separate partition for each? If it is to avoid having to predict how large
>> each should be, LVM may still be worth considering. In this case, you'd
>> have logical partitions for /home and /data, which would lead to a more
>> "normal" fstab. If you leave some space unallocated as John suggested, you
>> can grow each partition as needed. A benefit would be that you could use a
>> different filesystem for /data. For example, XFS is better for really big
>> files IIRC.
>> On another note ... you guys are cruisin' for a thread on top-posting and
>> trimming history. :P
> Point taken. (-:
> The easiest non-in-person explanation is, a disk (partition) is a disk. It's
> space. Stop with the artificial boundaries, already. Or, perhaps, to put it
> another way, there are two types of files (partitions/disks), OS, and
> everything else.
> So to follow with you and Raul, the next question becomes 'remind me of the
> nature of links'. Not links per se, but the sometimes subtle differences
> between soft and hard. And, I'm not sure, but is bind -o a different type of
> link? (Intuitively I would guess a hard link, but intuition is breaking down
> for me these days.)
> e.g. While having these links (however formed, ln -s, or bind -o) I'm going
> to want to know how much space is free per disk. Not for both disks
> together. So there's the whole 'this is a (hard/soft) link, don't follow it'
> If I want to know by disk or by subdirectory how much space is taken, there
> will be times when I want to know by disk, and other times when I want to
> know by / (both disks).
> Thoughts / suggestions / clarity?
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org at kwlug.org
More information about the kwlug-disc_kwlug.org