Quote:
Originally Posted by forkbomb
I understand where you're trying to go with that, but in that case you're wasting the partition mounted on /home.
(Also I believe that should be mkdir /otherhome.)
|
Copying ONE user's account to "/" is NOT wasting the entire /home partition unless there is only one account. Still it's a lousy way to manage space. You are correct on the typo.
Quote:
|
The answer to the OP's question is still "not really" (Fine. I'll budge). Doing that will still not allow the OS to write to one or the other partition on the fly.
|
If you mean it isn't pulling blocks off both partitions for allocations for one file - then you are correct which is why it's a lousy way to maange space (per file rather than from a common pool. My second suggestion is a rube-goldberg, but it will allocate space well.
Quote:
|
As the situation stands now, anything written to the OP's /home will go to the partition on which /home is mounted. If you use the softlink method, you're writing to the partition that's mapped to /. The OS is still not going to "on the fly" use the partitions efficiently.
|
The OS never switches file-i/o between file-systems "on the fly" - all inodes exist in a single files system always - that's a strawman argument. It's a matter of on which FS the resolved directory (from the link) resides. But it's ALWAYS a matter of where the resolved directory resides - there is no "on the fly" ever. Swap is the only exception but that's not really a file system.
You seem to be missing the point - you can move *some* directories to balance space utilization, but it is a lousy way to solve the problem. You aren't taking new blocks from both FS of course - but you never do that anyway.
Quote:
|
There's some tricky stuff you can do, and the loopback LVM setup is intriguing (if not excessively complicated), but ultimately anything we could concoct in this thread is duct tape that fails to address the fact that the underlying partition setup is not appropriate for given needs.
|
It's not that complex, however is is an awful solution - agreed. It doesn't deserve to be compared to duct tape. Still, if you were really stuck we have a loads of great tools that really allow for flexible solutions like this. Say you can't repartition drives for some reason but you really need a bigger FS than any one partition. You can create files associated with loop devices and slap them all into a RAID-0 or LVM.
Quote:
|
tl;dr: Figure out why gparted couldn't resize your partitions. (Did you install with LVM?)
|
Ugh - the bane of home users. You probably have guessed the problem.
Of course I am just being contrary here. The real-world/half-decent-practices solution is to resize. Anything else is a hack.
Linear Mode
