>> That would make more sense then. I thought for sure that years ago I read >> /usr shoud be on / but my memory does seem to fail me. I never understood >> why and onetime I installed without it and everything worked fine. > in theory, you should be able to mount a shared /usr partition via >NFS; saving disk space and admin hassles. as such, you need to be able to >boot without it, in case of emergency. I would strongly reccommend against this. NFS is spoofable, so anything which contains OS type material should be local. Yes, it's feasible, but don't do it. I believe this came up a while ago, as well as an explanation of the rationale for the existence of a /usr partition. Should be in the archives. Personally, I prefer having just the one partition. With extra space needed for /tmp and /usr/tmp, putting them together allows both free spaces to be "combined". 2 cents. Ok, maybe 1/2. Ed Hoeffner 1-271 BSBE 312 Church St. SE Mpls, MN 55455 hoeffner at dcmir.med.umn.edu 612-625-2115 612-625-2163 fax