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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I've got a pogoplug running Arch Linux that I'm using for a NAS with rsync backing up my data over SSH. Right now, I'm the only one using it, but I'd like to add my roommate as well. She has her own external hard drive on which to store her backup data.

Would it be strange to mount /home/my-user/ on the hard drive I currently have my data backing up to, and /home/roommate-user/ on her hard drive? Or is there a more sensible way to do it?

What's the best practice here?

share|improve this question
up vote 0 down vote accepted

Yes, that's a perfectly reasonable way to do it. Having home directories on a separate partition from the OS is pretty common. Having home directories directly under /home is common on systems with a small number of users; systems in institutions with a large number of users often have subdirectories under /home corresponding to different departments of the institution, which may be mounted from different disk pools or different servers. On a system with one or a small number of main users, making these users' home directories mount points is reasonable; the only downside is that each of them will contain a lost+found directory. You may prefer to have /home/my-disk and /home/roommate-disk as mount points and /home/my-disk/my-user and /home/roommate-disk/roommate-user as home directories, but having /home/my-user and /home/roommate-user as both mount points and home directories is also fine.

share|improve this answer

/home is for user-specific data, wherever it's coming from or being stored on. The immediate children of /home often came from other filesystems back in the glory days of NIS (although that was with NFS automounts). It would only seem weird to me if you had personal files mounted on some random directory like an immediate child of /var or something. Most "best practices" relate to things related to filesystem choice/sizing(e.g reiserfs vs ext4), volume management (e.g giving LV's just enough space to do their job and leaving the rest in the VG for later expansion) mount points are basically "If it's not obviously wrong, and that's where you need the space to be, do it."

In an enterprise environment, you try to mount filesystems where people are most likely to go looking for the files that are stored on that filesystem, or where if they see the filesystem mounted they can infer what the files belong to/are for. This is a personal server, so it's not an issue, but this would probably be fine in enterprise environments as well.

As long as you personally understand the filesystem hierarchy, and have access to the files you're backing up there, you should be good.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.