From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Dec 9 1:18:17 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from winston.freebsd.org (adsl-64-173-15-98.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [64.173.15.98]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E2037B416 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from winston.freebsd.org (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winston.freebsd.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB99HJq50983; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:17:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@winston.freebsd.org) To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Bernd Walter , 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) In-Reply-To: Message from Matthew Dillon of "Sat, 08 Dec 2001 18:23:20 PST." <200112090223.fB92NKf34327@apollo.backplane.com> Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 01:17:19 -0800 Message-ID: <50979.1007889439@winston.freebsd.org> From: Jordan Hubbard 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 > Ah well. Perhaps my expectations were a little too high. They were. :-) One of the "bigger picture points" I tried to make at the beginning of my own counter-arguments were that once you try and expand the set of default filesystems, you're defining contraversial policy whether you like it or not and people have as many views on filesystem layout as they do on window managers or screen editors. The set of defaults currently in sysinstall certainly does piss people off and it, by definition, cannot even avoid doing so because it defines a fixed policy. I knew that going into it and hence chose the absolute minimum number of filesystems to make such policy decisions about. It absolutely goes without saying that filesystems should be auto-sized by having minimum and perferred sizes which can also be "floating" sizes, not simply one fixed size. It also goes without saying that it would be a really cool interface feature if deleting a filesystem caused its space to go to the nearest float-sized filesystem, or if growing/shrinking a filesystem could also produce that effect in its relevant neighbor(s). However, if you're going to change default creation policy at all (and, again, this is why I've stayed away from the idea for so long), you need to at least provide a good set of canned policies so that people can cycle through them and find the one which pisses them off the least, including the default of "minimum" if they already like the current behavior. That will give you both your cake and a nice corner to eat it in. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message