From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Dec 8 19:12:49 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EC637B416 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 19:12:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by srv1.cosmo-project.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with UUCP id fB93Ceb67567; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 04:12:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.cicely.de (cicely20.cicely.de [10.1.1.22]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id fB93Cutx060915; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 04:12:56 +0100 (CET)?g (envelope-from ticso@cicely8.cicely.de) Received: from cicely8.cicely.de (cicely8.cicely.de [10.1.2.10]) by mail.cicely.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id fB93CtW02970; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 04:12:55 +0100 (CET) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely8.cicely.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fB93CnG07544; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 04:12:49 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 04:12:49 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Peter Wemm , Wilko Bulte , "David O'Brien" , Garance A Drosihn , "Louis A. Mamakos" , Sheldon Hearn , Kirk McKusick , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposed auto-sizing patch to sysinstall (was Re: Using a larger block size on large filesystems) Message-ID: <20011209041249.D7042@cicely8.cicely.de> References: <20011209003829.C6171@cicely8.cicely.de> <20011209005732.019053808@overcee.netplex.com.au> <20011209025547.B7042@cicely8.cicely.de> <200112090223.fB92NKf34327@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200112090223.fB92NKf34327@apollo.backplane.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely8.cicely.de 5.0-CURRENT i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 06:23:20PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Sigh. Well, I guess it was a mistake in believing that you guys > would actually write considered responses to the list (except > for Jordan who while I don't agree with his position, at least > took some time to think about the issue). Lets see, what have I > heard so far? Jordan wants a major generification of the mechanism > (about a 3 man-day's worth of work. At least). Peter and Bernd > are posting their favorite (and apparently extremely complex and > non-standard) partitioning methodologies, neither of which is The *non-standard* is still documented in /usr/share/doc/smm/01.setup/paper.ascii.gz Peters layout isn't that different from that documented and mine. The paper claims different partitions for /usr/src and /usr/obj. Peter, the paper and me agree that they don't belong onto the /usr partition itself. I also softlink them into the right place - usually a network path as I do buildworlds on a single machine for each architecture. What realy belongs into an /usr partition is very static in size: ticso@cicely5# df -k /usr Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/da0f 183925 132340 36871 78% /usr /usr/local and /usr/X11R6 is network shared so it's impractical to be part of /usr anyway. An 1.5G /usr might be OK for the usual desktop system and if you don't want - well you can always change the size to your needs. But I'm against an /tmp->/var/tmp softlink and I'm against /home because both are non-standard for good reasons. I already explained them in my last mail. If you say /var/home or /var/users and maybe an softlink from /home we can agree for home. That way the realpathname remains in /var, /home can easily replaced with a network volume. -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message