Take the 2-minute tour ×
Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems.. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When I was doing dual boot all my extra storage was simple in /win/d, /win//e, /win/f, ... and formated ntfs.

Now the desktop only runs Windows in a VM, and I access all my partitions from samba ( except for the destop ).

I'm totally confused how to organise things.

So how do you layout your extra HD space that you want multiple users to access ( ps I use different accounts for different things... ie personnas )? Can't all be in /home if different people want to have access to it.

Also how do you organize your different data: movies, books, music, scripts written on the computer, software projects, software created outside the package system ( I like to keep such separate ) etc.

share|improve this question
add comment

5 Answers

Really finding something that works for you is the best option. I always create a new mount point either /data or /storage depending on my mood. any non transient data I think I might need but is just cluttering up /home/ gets moved there, as well as shared data.

as far as how do I organize data:

/storage/movies/<big pile-o-moviex
/storage/music/artist/album
/storage/projects/<language>/project
/storage/<logical_category>/<logical_segmentation>

share|improve this answer
    
That is pretty much exactly how I do it, too. –  fschmitt Oct 22 '10 at 6:36
add comment

I like to split my data into two central folders: One (I call it normally /heap) with recoverable data which I don't have to backup (everything which is just a replication from a central server) and one (I use /data) for the rest. This makes automated backup mach easier than having to carry a list of directories which are under backup.

That also means I split data from settings and keep just settings in /home as also recommended by Zypher.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for "split data from settings" –  phunehehe Oct 22 '10 at 10:59
add comment

All of this is being served by Samba? I'd say for example /srv/smb/music is approprate then.

Per the FHS

/srv contains site-specific data which is served by this system.

Rationale

This main purpose of specifying this is so that users may find the location of the data files for particular service, and so that services which require a single tree for readonly data, writable data and scripts (such as cgi scripts) can be reasonably placed. Data that is only of interest to a specific user should go in that users' home directory.

The methodology used to name subdirectories of /srv is unspecified as there is currently no consensus on how this should be done. One method for structuring data under /srv is by protocol, eg. ftp, rsync, www, and cvs. On large systems it can be useful to structure /srv by administrative context, such as /srv/physics/www, /srv/compsci/cvs, etc. This setup will differ from host to host. Therefore, no program should rely on a specific subdirectory structure of /srv existing or data necessarily being stored in /srv. However /srv should always exist on FHS compliant systems and should be used as the default location for such data.

Distributions must take care not to remove locally placed files in these directories without administrator permission.

share|improve this answer
add comment

You might be interested in completely different to hierarchy approach - tagging , where you assign files to sets and find stuff by using sets intersections, like http://delicious.com/ or http://diigo.com .

For filesystem you might like to use:

or support traditional hierarchical model with:

Remember.

  • When organizing things in Linux , you can always take advantage of symbolic links and hard links (for directories as well) !
share|improve this answer
add comment

So you want to have different people have access to the same mounted devices? The standard places are /mnt, /opt, /mnt/media. Or you could set a loopback mount to /home//. There are lots of options, you can do wahtever you want.

Personally I think having different logins is stupid unless you have a security issue or something.

share|improve this answer
4  
Having different logins makes sense even if there is no "security issue or something": Users should be able to customize their working environment to make them as efficient as possible, different logins allow that to happen. –  tante Oct 22 '10 at 9:09
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.