Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:39:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Jon Dama <jd@ugcs.caltech.edu> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, "C. Michailidis" <dinom@balstonresearch.com> Subject: Re: Sysinstall automatic filesystem size generation. Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0508282332420.20467@riyal.ugcs.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <4312A9CD.8040008@freebsd.org> References: <200508282330.09302.dinom@balstonresearch.com> <20050829033739.GV26920@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <200508290213.12978.dinom@balstonresearch.com> <4312A9CD.8040008@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
yes, that's quite generous. why isn't /tmp just an mfs mount though? On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Colin Percival wrote: > C. Michailidis wrote: > > Remember, I'm talking about the 'path of least resistance', I understand that > > I could label the slice manually with any number of different configurations. > > The issue I was hoping to shed some light on is... "Can the auto-configuration > > mechanism stand to be improved?". Is it reasonable (in today's era of dirt cheap > > disk space) to have a mere 256MB allocated to /tmp (or /var or even /) by > > default? > > The default sizes are now currently 512 MB for / and /tmp, and 1024 MB plus > space for one crashdump on /var. If anything, these are vast overkill for most > systems; on /, for example, it is hard to imagine a situation where a normal > user would use more than 150MB of space unless they were doing something which > they shouldn't be doing. > > Colin Percival > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.53.0508282332420.20467>