From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 2 14:38:08 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5AB1106564A for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:38:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bruce@cran.org.uk) Received: from muon.cran.org.uk (muon.cran.org.uk [204.109.60.94]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BC78FC16 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:38:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from unknown (client-86-31-67-88.midd.adsl.virginmedia.com [86.31.67.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by muon.cran.org.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCC0A613C; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:38:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:38:14 +0100 From: Bruce Cran To: Arthur Chance Message-ID: <20100702153814.00000aa2@unknown> In-Reply-To: <4C2DF1DA.2020503@qeng-ho.org> References: <20100701212112.GA28138@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <4C2D9659.3060208@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20100702131315.00007c89@unknown> <4C2DF1DA.2020503@qeng-ho.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.4cvs1 (GTK+ 2.16.0; i586-pc-mingw32msvc) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /boot is full after running "make installkernel" on FreeBSD 8.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 14:38:08 -0000 On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:04:10 +0100 Arthur Chance wrote: > 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? > I came up with that value based on discussion on IRC. I also thought that portsnap might take up quite a bit more than it actually does. It perhaps doesn't need updated from its current value. -- Bruce Cran