Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:35:09 -0800
From:      Devin Teske <devin.teske@fisglobal.com>
To:        "'Chuck Swiger'" <cswiger@mac.com>, <david.robison@fisglobal.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   RE: One or Four?
Message-ID:  <020601ccedc4$681c4d80$3854e880$@fisglobal.com>
In-Reply-To: <ECC9F8CC-7535-4C82-9F88-358DA3B42D5C@mac.com>
References:  <4F3ECF23.5000706@fisglobal.com> <ECC9F8CC-7535-4C82-9F88-358DA3B42D5C@mac.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> questions@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Swiger
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 2:18 PM
> To: david.robison@fisglobal.com
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: One or Four?
> 
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Robison, Dave wrote:
> > We'd like a show of hands to see if folks prefer the "old" style default
with 4
> partitions and swap, or the newer iteration with 1 partition and swap.
> 
> For a user/desktop machine, I prefer one root partition.  For other roles like
a
> server, I prefer multiple partitions which have been sized for the intended
usage.
> 

Then does the question ultimately become...

"Shall we then have two algorithms and ask the user whether they are installing
for the desktop versus server?"

If that's the case, then I think this is something I could personally live with
(as it then becomes possible to obtain the old layout of 4 partitions with
auto-calculated sizes ala Colin Percival's last sizing algorithm committed in
version 1.149 of src/usr.sbin/sysinstall/label.c made pre-SVN 6 years 6 months
ago).

See
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.sbin/sysinstall/Attic/label.c?rev=
1.149;content-type=text%2Fx-cvsweb-markup

The above link describes the partition scheme that I and colleagues seek-most to
return to FreeBSD 9.x and higher.

I argue that Colin's algorithm is still useful for servers and is still the
preferred method of allocation for servers and thus should remain an option,
even if we don't change the [new] default back to the above linked-to scheme.
-- 
Devin


_____________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?020601ccedc4$681c4d80$3854e880$>