Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:04:10 +0100 From: Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> To: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /boot is full after running "make installkernel" on FreeBSD 8.0 Message-ID: <4C2DF1DA.2020503@qeng-ho.org> In-Reply-To: <20100702131315.00007c89@unknown> References: <AANLkTil7rb8_YNbGPfwsNt1_Zn4hdOr9hTpGwVwTEbrF@mail.gmail.com> <20100701212112.GA28138@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <AANLkTinLgvd9GLP8RXeiWcowBoFxSeZSJLMHjCFq8jGR@mail.gmail.com> <4C2D9659.3060208@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20100702131315.00007c89@unknown>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/02/10 13:13, Bruce Cran wrote: > I have a task on my TODO list to increase the sizes of the partitions in > sysinstall: for example / goes to 1GB, /var to 4GB. I hope to commit > the code in the next couple of weeks. As a matter of idle curiosity with a bit of education thrown in, why 4GB for /var? The last time I installed a new machine I made / 1GB as I'd found out from a previous install that 512MB wasn't really enough, and then decided to make /var bigger than the Handbook said as well and made it 3GB. This has turned out to be total overkill: arthur@fileserver> df -h /var Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad10s1d 2.9G 205M 2.5G 8% /var I'm sure my use of this machine is very simple and nowhere near as large as other people's but a leap of 4-16 times what it currently suggests in the Handbook seems a bit excessive, especially if people are installing onto older kit. OTOH, playing devil's advocate with myself, disks are huge these days so why not?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C2DF1DA.2020503>