From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 24 11:53:17 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF70016A420 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:53:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from igloo.linux.gr (igloo.linux.gr [62.1.205.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146F743D45 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:53:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from flame.pc (aris.bedc.ondsl.gr [62.103.39.226]) (authenticated bits=128) by igloo.linux.gr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-3) with ESMTP id k1OBqne5004201 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:52:56 +0200 Received: from flame.pc (flame [127.0.0.1]) by flame.pc (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k1OBqN1J001579; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:52:23 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from keramida@localhost) by flame.pc (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k1OBqLf8001578; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:52:21 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:52:21 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Robert Huff , Jerry McAllister , gs_stoller@juno.com Message-ID: <20060224115221.GA1411@flame.pc> References: <20060222.164330.8420.330983@webmail39.nyc.untd.com> <200602240348.k1O3mP3W008525@clunix.cl.msu.edu> <17406.40984.714089.650620@jerusalem.litteratus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17406.40984.714089.650620@jerusalem.litteratus.org> X-Hellug-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Hellug-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-3.371, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, AWL 0.83, BAYES_00 -2.60, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0.20) X-Hellug-MailScanner-From: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Computer System X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:53:18 -0000 On 2006-02-24 00:56, Robert Huff wrote: > Jerry McAllister writes: >> For those reasons, I generally make the following partitions. >> >> partition Mount size comments >> a = / (root) 128MB > > May I ask what OS version you're running? Because on my -CURRENT > system: > > huff@>> du /boot | sort -nr > 151838 /boot > 66596 /boot/kernel.old > 66526 /boot/kernel > 17810 /boot/kernel.generic > 20 /boot/defaults > 2 /boot/modules > 2 /boot/firmware CURRENT usually has larger binaries, because of all the extra debugging information that is customarily enabled in the kernel. On an amd64 system here, the root partition uses even more disk space: # df -m / Filesystem 1M-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad0s2a 1583 285 1171 20% / # > Su unless I'm doing sonething that causes bloat, 128mb will be > woefully inadwquate. Possibly. I'd certainly go for a larger root partition than 128 MB, but Jerry has done a great work outlining his partition scheme and why he chose those sizes. The general idea here is that there isn't an easy way to find the One True Partitioning Scheme(TM) -- one that will match everyone's needs for now and all eternity. The original poster should spend some time thinking about what the system will be used for. Then the mechanics of using fdisk(8) and disklabel(8) or bsdlabel(8) are an eays thing to explain :)