Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:57:23 -0600 From: Jon Hamilton <hamilton@pobox.com> To: Christopher Palmer <cpalmer@jig.ordway.org> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FS sizes for a small web/mail server? Message-ID: <19990401035723.6AE093F@woodstock.monkey.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:53:03 CST." <Pine.BSF.4.10.9903312051110.28364-100000@jig.ordway.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.10.9903312051110.28364-100000@jig.ordway.org>, Christoph er Palmer wrote: } On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Greg Lehey wrote: } } > You apparently missed the beginning of this thread. I strongly } > discouraged (and discourage) the use of small additional file systems. } } I didn't miss the beginning of the thread. I just disagree with you. :^) } } > You're bound to find that you fill one up and have space left over in } > another, and before you know it you're going to end up with a symlink } > jungle. } } Perhaps in some cases. But in this case, we're talking about a /var that } is ~10MB. This is not likely to hurt the bigger filesystems. Maybe, but with such a small /var, you may still wind up in symlink hell. /var/db alone on my machine is almost 6Mb. In my experience, lots of small filesystems like you seem to be advocating is good in theory, but irritating in practice, especially when dealing with more than a small handful of machines. -- Jon Hamilton hamilton@pobox.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990401035723.6AE093F>