Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:29:51 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> To: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org> Cc: Sean Bruno <sean.bruno@dsl-only.net>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Default FS Layout Too Small? Message-ID: <49A458BF.8090603@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20090224192950.GA93786@crodrigues.org> References: <1235502625.4345.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090224192950.GA93786@crodrigues.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Craig Rodrigues wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:10:25AM -0800, Sean Bruno wrote: > >>I would assume that the default would be much larger now-a-days. I think >>a simple doubling to 1G would be sufficient. > > Is there any point these days to having sysinstall auto-default to creating > separate slices for /tmp, /var/, /usr........ > when setting up new systems, I've started just ignoring > the sysinstall auto-defaults and making one big / partition > and installing FreeBSD there.... > > It seems every release we need to keep bumping up the size of > the sysinstall auto-defaults because they are too small. > > This bites new users. I agree. The "one big /" style of partitioning seems a much more reasonable default for most desktop/laptop users these days. For server users, the separate /tmp and /var are pretty critical, though I doubt those folks are using the "A"uto layout very much, so changing the "A"uto layout to just allocate / and swap would seem to make sense. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49A458BF.8090603>