default size of root fs

Brian LaMere brian at
Mon Dec 6 20:53:20 UTC 2010

I disagree that this is off-topic; it's about the differences of the systems
in a cloud environment, versus a non-cloud environment.  Seems like that
makes it pretty apropos for a cloud list ;)

> any advanced unix-like clone supports and recommends that -except linux :)

not sure where you get that idea; some of the distributions make life easier
(on themselves) by not breaking them out during the default installations.
 A default install from a CD is only meant for a person just starting out,
however - and any of the distros designed to be used for "real" tasks have
easy automatic tools for breaking apart partitions.  It's really easy in a
kickstart file, for instance.  There is absolutely nothing of merit anywhere
I've ever seen (and I've been a Linux sysadmin-type since late 94) that
recommends using a single volume for everything.  It's a more accessible OS
than any of the other UNIX variants, which means it has more easy
howto-guides for beginners; some of those might recommend a single volume,
but just for making things easy to get started (which isn't the same as a
person doing real work with the system).

> agreed, but to skip one layer of security because it is not the saint grail
> it not a smart move. I

It's not a layer of security.  It is false security - that's the point.
 False security is worse than no security; at least when there is no
security, people /behave/ as though there is no security.  But if people
think things are secure, they do things that are then less safe.  It's a
social engineering problem - one that impacts how an instance is used.  The
right thing to do is to treat the instance-store (the S3 "volume" provided
to the instance) as an insecure place, without adding any false sense of
security to it.  Adding a layer of "security" that isn't one - hurts, not

> well this is not the case. S3 is used to store the linux image and during
> the instance creation

It is the case.  S3 is just a webserver, serving out your files when you do
a get, changing them when you do a put, etc.  "partitions" is meaningless,
as it is not a discrete filesystem.  Your single "filesystem" is spread out
on hundreds of servers; partitions as boundaries are meaningless on
non-discrete storage.

> the system downloads the image and creates a local copy of it and the FS is
> created on the local hard drives. S3 is not suitable to store you root
> filesystem and operates a running system from there for multiple reasons(one
> is latency)

>From my understanding, these are blade servers; there is no "local" hard
drive - everything is either from a SAN (EBS) or from S3.  And yes,
sometimes s3-backed systems experience I/O latency.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the cloud mailing list