This question already has an answer here:
When I install a graphical distro for personal purpose I usually separate
When I install a server I stick to
/ only, and depending on the project I may consider some other on demand, as I have mentioned here with
Based on the premise I am talking about a Linux server it seems there is a tendency of recklessly separating every root directory into partitions I don't get why.
During my research I have read this article which gives good reasons for separating partitions but doesn't seem to be overdone for every directory.
The fact you could configure different flags on mounting as nodev, nosuid or even noexec doesn't seem such crucial to me as if the user is not sudoer simple denying write access would be enough, and if it is sudoer these flags would not prevent any damage.
The fact you could backup them separated doesn't pay the burden. and the fact you could clear them separated you could simple remove the directory.
The fact you could have badblocks on some of them doesn't make me feel any relieved, such as the badblocks are given by sector, the files would be damaged with or without partitions.
The only fact I can think could be a little good would be if the partitions are on separeted disks and one of them failed to be loaded or had the partition table sector damaged, but depending on the case you wouldn't be able to boot the system anyway, with or without several spread partitions.
Thinking about this last possibility, in order to recover the disk wouldn't make any difference to have one or several partition, you can run testdisk or ddrescue the image in any case will result the same.
I am wondering what are those so called best-practices' reasons for having several partition separation without taking into account which suit the project?