From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Sep 9 05:21:29 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1927BA00B5B for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 05:21:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wam@hiwaay.net) Received: from fly.hiwaay.net (fly.hiwaay.net [216.180.54.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE81315D0 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 05:21:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wam@hiwaay.net) Received: from kabini1.local (dynamic-216-186-222-143.knology.net [216.186.222.143] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by fly.hiwaay.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/fly) with ESMTP id t895LQfT013443 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 00:21:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Storage question To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <55EF3D23.5060009@hiwaay.net> <44lhcgbr4f.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <55EF468A.4090902@hiwaay.net> <55EF4E22.8070200@radel.com> From: "William A. Mahaffey III" Message-ID: <55EFC1D6.4090209@hiwaay.net> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 00:26:56 -0453.75 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55EF4E22.8070200@radel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 05:21:29 -0000 On 09/08/15 16:14, Jon Radel wrote: > On 9/8/15 4:33 PM, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: >> >> Not really, & you may be right, much ado about nothing, but I like >> things as efficient as possible. > There are many ways to measure efficiency--and most people don't work > as cheap as you apparently do.... Of course, if these are a cross > between hobby servers and training platform, more power to you. > Breaking everything can be remarkably educational if one then takes > the time to unbreak it all. :-) > >> I may be reading wrong, but I think I see ~5.3 MiB *per file*, or a >> few hundred MiB total in /rescue. There are also those pkg.sql >> backups, @ about 10 MiB apiece. The reason I ask is I have about 12 >> GiB used total in my root dir & I'm trying to figure out where it is >> all going. It may be nothing, I wanted to see if I could get down to >> an 8 GiB root partition, but that may be unrealistic. >> > I'd say you're ending up with extra cruft somewhere. I just checked 2 > production machines (10.1, I don't have anything 9ish around anymore) > and the root partitions use 1.1G and 3G. I made absolutely *no* > attempt to trim down the size of the root partition, or anything else, > as between ZFS, 1 TB drives being about the smallest worth buying, and > my relatively modest data requirements, I find more amusing things to > do with my time. I am indeed using 1 TB drives (2X in 1 case, 8X in the other), but (apparently) confused myself w/ my choice of ways to assess storage used :-/ .... > > $ du -sh /rescue > 4.9M /rescue > > does that really show several hundred M on your system? > > --Jon Radel > jon@radel.com Well ... no, but my original command seemed to. I think I now stand corrected, & thanks (sincerely) for that. -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.