From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 26 18:03:30 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D70B106564A for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:03:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.25.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8AF8FC0C for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:03:29 +0000 (UTC) X-AuditID: 1209190c-b7fd26d0000008df-84-4e80be70aefc Received: from mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.35]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id C5.A7.02271.07EB08E4; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:03:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id p8QI3S3S009820; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:03:28 -0400 Received: from multics.mit.edu (MULTICS.MIT.EDU [18.187.1.73]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id p8QI3QL1010654 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kaduk@localhost) by multics.mit.edu (8.12.9.20060308) id p8QI3P4c017406; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:03:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:03:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk To: Brett Glass In-Reply-To: <201109260927.02540.jhb@freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <201109260053.SAA25795@lariat.net> <201109260927.02540.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (GSO 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrDIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrFuwr8HPYPomS4s5X/6xWsx584HJ Yu+R68wOzB4zPs1n8bjyyiSAKYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY/bmGewFV7grbi/qZW9g3MPZxcjJ ISFgItH26TorhC0mceHeerYuRi4OIYF9jBJ3P3xhhHA2MEp8eH6fCaRKSOAAk0TL3mqIRAOj xO2FV5hBEiwC2hK/5r9kB7HZBFQkZr7ZyAZiiwgoSdxe9BaohoODWcBeYvtLHpCwsIC+xPGG n2CtnAKGEpv2XQC7gheoZHXLMzaIXcESvce+MYLYogI6Eqv3T2GBqBGUODnzCZjNLGApce7P dbYJjIKzkKRmIUktYGRaxSibklulm5uYmVOcmqxbnJyYl5dapGuol5tZopeaUrqJERywkjw7 GN8cVDrEKMDBqMTDO3Nbg58Qa2JZcWXuIUZJDiYlUV63nUAhvqT8lMqMxOKM+KLSnNTiQ4wS HMxKIrxrVwLleFMSK6tSi/JhUtIcLErivAd3OPgJCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbBZGU4OJQkeA/vBWoU LEpNT61Iy8wpQUgzcXCCDOcBGr4NpIa3uCAxtzgzHSJ/ilGX49uDTScYhVjy8vNSpcR5Z4IU CYAUZZTmwc2BJZpXjOJAbwnz1oBU8QCTFNykV0BLmICW5NTUgiwpSURISTUwhj/dN/fFz10H nMNK1yrcEI42DvBpzf9TufxMWWPghTeCLSwTzdd3bVyqdvZ7xMR4C+vra9UrbI7ej9/5tu9T hPeeiHeXLm6Z91LP/NHOyIJSEcWT12vOL/9meWquZOvuHRu2Lj4yPXGVgeTpPNuwCJFw7r1z tQtYgydsnaf877/8qVuO8qUZ1UosxRmJhlrMRcWJAFDJm4EPAwAA Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Experiences with FreeBSD 9.0-BETA2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:03:30 -0000 On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, John Baldwin wrote: > On Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:52:37 pm Brett Glass wrote: >> First thing I noticed, when running the new FreeBSD installer from >> a memory stick image, is that disk partitioning was odd. It >> abandoned standard UNIX parlance, calling what are traditionally >> called "slices" partitions. It also diverged from past practice by >> creating one big UFS filesystem rather than the usual separate >> partitions for /, /tmp, /var, /usr. It then made a separate slice >> (to use the traditional terminology) for swap, rather than >> including it in the slice that contained the big file system. This >> seemed odd; if the file system was being lumped together in one >> place, why break out the swap to an entirely separate slice? > > I can't speak to the "one-big-fs" bit (there was another thread long ago about > that). However, as to the partitioning bit, bsdinstall is defaulting to using The question of how to layout and split filesystems was discussed at the filesystems working group of the devsummit at BSDCan this may. (http://wiki.freebsd.org/201105DevSummit/FileSystems down to "Filesystem Layout" near the bottom) Though "one big root" did not garner a huge amount of support, neither were there particularly compelling arguments against it (if I remember correctly). It's certainly easier to write an autopartitioner for, so I don't really blame Nathan for having chosen it initially. -Ben Kaduk