RE: [cobalt-users] Symbolic link for /usr directory

[Johan Pretorius <johan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This is all about claiming back space from the root filesystem ...

> One option is to copy the /usr directory to /home/usr, and create a
symbolic
> link such as /usr -> /home/usr.  Is there any reason why one should *not*
do
> that?  There shouldn't be, /opt and /tmp already points to /home/opt and
> /home/tmp.

shimi replied:

>A symbolic link is transparent to the software. The programs don't even
>know they're writing to a different directory than the one they've
>requested. There's no problem at all doing what you want to do...

Others weren't all that sure:

>However, i'd verify that ldconfig is run *after* mounting /home if you do
>this, as there are shared libraries in /usr/lib ;)

>Also, doing this means many of your system tools won't be available if you
>have to boot the machine with /home not mounted for maintainance..

>Perhaps just move /usr/local ?

....

I decided to ask Sun Cobalt the same question - they reckon it is a
bad idea altogether:

>>>
I'm sorry, but we cannot recommend or assist with modifications to the
server of
that nature at this basic level of support. On the contrary, we would
explicity
recommend against such modifications, as we cannot assist with repairs
required
as a result of such changes. One possible problem I can think of might be
some
binary files have special permissions that may not be carried through on
symlinks.

The only avenue of assistance we could offer you with this kind of
customization
would be our Professional Services division.
>>>

There you have it then - rather only move certain sections of the /usr
directory, but again, at your own risk ...

Rgrds,

Johan Pretorius

.
. http://host24.com
. All the PHP/mySQL hosting you'll ever need
.