Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 18:31:22 -0500 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> To: Marko Zec <zec@tel.fer.hr> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using a larger block size on large filesystems Message-ID: <200112072331.fB7NVM724075@whizzo.transsys.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 08 Dec 2001 00:25:19 %2B0100." <3C114FDF.138E09A7@tel.fer.hr> References: <31807.1007732134@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> <200112072257.fB7MvjE95211@apollo.backplane.com> <200112072311.fB7NB2723789@whizzo.transsys.com> <3C114FDF.138E09A7@tel.fer.hr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> "Louis A. Mamakos" wrote: > > > While we're gonna be changing the default file system characteristics, > > how about having sysinstall create a reasonable size root file system > > for today's disks? I think that if we're installing on a multi-gigabyte > > disk, a 200MB root file system isn't imposing very much. > > Why would we want to do that? Putting unnecessary things on / is always a > bad idea, as root partition should remain small and as free of frequent RW > operations as possible. I would prefeer to see /tmp extracted from root fs > (as a mfs by default), much more than seing a huge / with lots of garbage in > it. Root should remain compact as it is more or less right now. > > Marko I'm not gonna argue that more stuff ought to be put on the root file system, but having more breathing room also fixes the "running out of space when installing a new kernel due to softupdates" problem. Or having space more an extra backup kernel (and modules) without worrying how close to full you are. louie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200112072331.fB7NVM724075>