In studying for the lcpi exam, I met the following statement.

If multiple disks are available it is good practice to also have the /usr and /home directories on different partitions. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LPI_Linux_Certification/Design_Hard_Disk_Layout

For desktop workstations, it makes sense to put your home directory on a separate drive or partition.

I've loged into a lot of linux servers, and I have never seen the system admin put these folders on separate partitions.

Is is common practice to separate these folders on linux servers?
What reasons might you separate /usr and /home? (Besides making reinstalling easier).

  • You might want to make /usr read-only, or make it an NFS share across multiple installations. – jordanm Jul 29 '13 at 2:58
  • @JMoore thanks for the insight. Do you also have a swap partition? If so, do you place it at the beginning or end of the drive. See my other question unix.stackexchange.com/questions/84453/… – spuder Jul 29 '13 at 13:55

The 3 primary reasons you would create these as separate partitions are as follows:

  1. performance
  2. isolation
  3. security


  • By separating /home you can put this data on a shared network disk so that when UserA logs into servers in a given domain, their /home/$USER will be a single copy that follows them from machine to machine. This is typically done using NFS and automounts (aka. autofs).

  • By putting /usr data on it's own partition, it can be mounted read-only, offering a level of protection to the data under this directory so that it cannot be tampered with so easily.

  • Some additional reasoning for isolating /usr, is for making it easier to deploy identical systems, these partitions can be prepared one time and then replicated across systems more easily.

  • Also separating the data out can make it easier for backup cycles.

  • Finally separating volatile directories such as /home can protect a system from having it's primary disk fill up by either an accidental or malicious user.

Over the course of my 15+ years of doing this I've only ever seen /home separated (as a network share via NFS) and the /boot and /var directories as being isolated as separate partitions. Outside of some esoteric Solaris boxes I can't recall ever seeing a Linux system having a separate /usr - and note that if you don't have /usr mounted before init starts, your system will break in esoteric and silent ways.

  • 2
    The difference with Solaris is correlation without causation. In the early 1990s, splitting off /usr was often a good idea, and Solaris was pretty common while Linux was barely starting. As Linux took over, splitting off /usr was becoming obsolete. – Gilles Jul 30 '13 at 1:24
  • IIRC debian-installer, if you select autopartitioning and select the option to split the most folders, will put /usr on a separate partition (along with /home, /var, /etc (I think), /boot and one or two others that I can't remember – strugee Jul 30 '13 at 2:58

Putting /home on a separate partition is fairly common. That typically splits system files (/) and user files (/home). The two filesystems may have different performance trade-offs, different backup policies, different quotas, different security policies, etc. Also this way the OS can be reinstalled or reimaged independently of the user data. Splitting /home is a good idea both for single-user workstations and for multi-user systems that store user files. I'd only keep /home on the same partition on a server that has no user files beyond the administrators' configuration files (but there might be a separate partition for whatever that machine is about — /var/mail, or a database, etc.), or on a quick-and-simple installation especially on a laptop which isn't going to be rebalanced to use a second disk.

Putting /usr on a separate partition used to be common, back when the OS used a large amount of disk space (say, 300MB out of 1GB). This partition could be made read-only, might be shared over the network. Making /usr read-only had the advantage that in case of a power loss, it wouldn't need an fsck. Nowadays all major filesystems use a journal and don't require any lengthy fsck, and disk sizes have increased a lot more than OS sizes — 30GB out of 1TB is peanuts, so it doesn't need to be shared. There is no good reason to split /usr from the rest of the system (/bin, /etc, /var, …). If you see advice to split /usr, it's grossly obsolete.


It is common to separate /usr and /home. There are a number of reasons for this. Here are a few:


Although encrypting the contents of /usr can have some benefits, it is common to dedicate full encrypted partitions to /home directories and leave /usr unencrypted.

Different drives

I am currently using a laptop that has a small SSD and a large hard drive. The root partition, which includes /usr, is on the SSD. /home is on the hard drive. SSDs wear down relatively quickly as they are written to. Putting volatile directories such as /home and /var on the SSD would decrease its lifespan significantly. Putting my root partition on the SSD decreases my machine's boot time.


It is common to mount /home directories with the nosetuid option. This option disallows the execution of setuid files on a mount. Setting this option makes it more difficult for users to hide away root-owned setuid shells.

  • Thanks for the info. I did not know about nosetuid. Sure enough, I was able to run a script as root after finding this blog tuxation.com/setuid-on-shell-scripts.html – spuder Jul 29 '13 at 4:13
  • Putting /usr in a different partition can actually disrupt the init process, which will usually be looking for files there, when it might not have been mounted yet. – Dalker Apr 28 at 13:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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