btober@seaworthysys.com writes:
> I think the original driving thought technically has something to do with
> system backup, and restore or system re-install in the case of
> catastrophic failure, as well as what I've alluded to in regards to
> original server setup planning and how intended usage impacts decisions
> with respect to hard drive partitioning (and vice versa?).
I believe some of the partitioning idea for /var was the idea that it was a
filesystem that would often be written to, unlike /, and that it was partly a
filesystem corruption safety net to have it as a separate filesystem. This of
course is what gives us the impression that it's suitable for ommission from
backups, i.e. stuff we don't worry too much about losing in the case of a
filesystem failure.
> I don't think there is much under /var that I usually consider necessary to
> back up.
It's always bugged me about /var/named/
--
Nigel Andrews
