From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Oct 19 4:30: 8 2002 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 6159E37B401 for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 04:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk [81.2.69.218]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2705143E6A for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 04:30:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk (localhost.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:::1]) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9JBTqei066470; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:29:52 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from matthew@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: (from matthew@localhost) by happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g9JBTlNF066469; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:29:47 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:29:47 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Gabriel Ambuehl Subject: Re: softupdates on /? Message-ID: <20021019112947.GA66358@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophi> Mail-Followup-To: Matthew Seaman , questions@FreeBSD.ORG, Gabriel Ambuehl References: <158158214781.20021019114034@buz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <158158214781.20021019114034@buz.ch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-14.7 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03, USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT version=2.41 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 11:40:34AM +0200, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote: > during the process of setting up some new servers I noticed that > sysinstall will enable softupdates by default for everything BUT /. > Is there any risk if I set / to use softupdates as well? The problem with softupdates is that a modification to the contents of a file system would result in a transient use of sufficient space to contain both the old and new versions of all affected files. Normally this is not a problem, but in certain cases it can lead to file modifications failing because of a full filesystem even though there is ultimately sufficient space available. One common instance of this is doing a 'make installworld' or 'make installkernel' where typical small root partitions generated by sysinstall can be overflowed. Now, arguments about how large a root partition should be or whether it should be amalgamated into /usr are neither here not there, but the contents of a standard root partition are generally static between major upgrades so there's no advantage to be gained by turning softupdates on. (Nb. This assumes that /var and /tmp are (sensibly) on different partitions to the root). > It works, but I'm not sure about the possible implications of this... For general use, softupdates on the root partition is not a problem. If your root partition is big enough to let you do whatever you need to by way of updating your system despite enabling softupdates, then you can turn it on with impunity. Of course, the size of the contents of the root partition tends to grow over time, so you may have to revisit that decision later on. It's also the case that modifications have been made to softupdates that ameliorate this effect, certainly in 5-CURRENT, not sure if they've been MFC'd to -STABLE though. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message