From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 25 03:20:39 2009 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 AABA5106564A for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:20:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lstewart@freebsd.org) Received: from lauren.room52.net (lauren.room52.net [210.50.193.198]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39CF88FC08 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:20:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lstewart@freebsd.org) Received: from lstewart.caia.swin.edu.au (lstewart.caia.swin.edu.au [136.186.229.95]) (authenticated bits=0) by lauren.room52.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n1P3J73v050914 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:19:12 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from lstewart@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <49A4B8A6.80303@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:19:02 +1100 From: Lawrence Stewart User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Kientzle References: <1235502625.4345.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090224192950.GA93786@crodrigues.org> <49A458BF.8090603@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <49A458BF.8090603@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on lauren.room52.net Cc: Craig Rodrigues , FreeBSD Current , Sean Bruno Subject: Re: Default FS Layout Too Small? 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: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:20:39 -0000 Tim Kientzle wrote: > 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. When I last played around with having 1 large partition in the 6.1 days, it didn't actually work consistently. From memory the issue is that if the boot filesystem (which was on the large root partition) extended past a particular combination of cyl/head/sector, the machine would crash in the boot stage. With a 20GB disk it was fine, but a 40GB disk would trigger the crash. This may have been fixed since then, but it would be worth doing some testing on a range of hardware before we could recommend it as an option. Cheers, Lawrence