Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:37:57 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: One or Four? Message-ID: <201202180637.q1I6bvuI070727@mail.r-bonomi.com> In-Reply-To: <4F3ECF23.5000706@fisglobal.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Fri Feb 17 16:20:48 2012 > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:05:23 -0800 > From: "Robison, Dave" <david.robison@fisglobal.com> > To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> > Subject: One or Four? > > Hiya, > > A question has arisen with the implementation of bsdinstall in 9.x as > opposed to sysinstall in 8.x and previous versions of FreeBSD. > > It has always been FreeBSD's default to create four partitions and swap > as such: > > / > /tmp > /var > /usr > swap > > The recent changes in 9.x with bsdinstall use a default behavior which > creates only one partition and swap, with everything living under a > single "/" partition as such: > > / > swap Blame the Linux community for fostering _that_ silliness. <wry grin> > We'd like a show of hands to see if folks prefer the "old" style default > with 4 partitions and swap, or the newer iteration with 1 partition and > swap. *I* would stronngly prefer _five_ partitions plus swap; / /tmp /var /usr /home swap There are good arguments to be made for keeping the '/' filesystem as small as practical, _and_ restricting it to 'system' content -- preferably all "non-volatile" such that it (as well as '/usr') can be mounted read-only. The above-mentioned RO mounting does wonders for system reliability and speed of crash recovery.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201202180637.q1I6bvuI070727>