From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Jan 10 6:49:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.184.128]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A6437B401 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 06:49:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lowell@localhost) by be-well.ilk.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f0AEnAD57498; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:49:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from lowell) To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, ron@zappa.demon.nl (Ron Klinkien) Subject: Re: Why is softupdates not enabled after newfs-ing during install? References: <000d01c07827$e86896c0$0304a8c0@smalweer.nl> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 10 Jan 2001 09:49:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: ron@zappa.demon.nl's message of "6 Jan 2001 22:32:34 +0100" Message-ID: <44vgrnmpi1.fsf@lowellg.ne.mediaone.net> Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG ron@zappa.demon.nl (Ron Klinkien) writes: > Since the copyright change of the softupdates code it's enabled by default > in the GENERIC kernel, which is a good thing... > > But why is there no 'tunefs -n enable' command after newfs-ing ufs > filesystem's during installation of FreeBSD? I assume that's because it would increase the memory requirements for doing an install. We already have some problems with predicting exactly how much memory is needed to install FreeBSD, and FreeBSD can *run* in considerably less memory than is needed for installing a recent release. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message