Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:19:41 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: freebsd.org@donnacha.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I need further HDD advice before submitting order. Message-ID: <428268DD.10006@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <42825F50.4040007@donnacha.com> References: <42822285.9050402@donnacha.com> <42823AB1.3050704@mac.com> <42824021.9000108@donnacha.com> <42824476.4090404@mac.com> <42825F50.4040007@donnacha.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
freebsd.org@donnacha.com wrote: > On the 200 GB drive > swap 2.5 GB > /mirror Same size as the actual size of the 1st disk, 65GB or whatever. > /spill All the rest > > Does that make sense? If you do want to mirror the boot disk, you want the first partition to be bootable and resemble the first disk, which means you do not want to put swap first on the 200GB drive. Put swap inside of /mirror, instead. No need to create another partition. > I guess that, as my usage grows, I'll be shifting things over with a > mind to both disk use balance and space, do you reckon those factors > will be fairly easy to work out? From your suggestion that I can > symlink stuff over to /spill with a reasonably fine granularity i.e. > /var/spool and/or /var/db etc, I get the impression that it will be. It takes some time and effort to monitor a machine. This is somewhat like asking a car mechanic "is it fairly easy to replace a transmission?" > Do symlink cause any sort of performance hit? Or rather, any meaningful > performance hit? Within reason, no. Badly written software or exceptional cases exist, but performance of symlink access does not differ significantly from regular directory traversal. -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?428268DD.10006>