Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 12:55:05 -0500 From: Ryan Sommers <ryans@gamersimpact.com> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <42F4F979.7080705@gamersimpact.com> In-Reply-To: <42F4F446.90304@freebsd.org> References: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> <20050806112118.GA7708@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20050806143812.GA76296@over-yonder.net> <42F4F446.90304@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Colin Percival wrote: > Your "rather oldish and rather smallish" /var is four times the default > size used in sysinstall (256MB is used for /, /tmp, and /var if you have > a large enough drive). This default results in having ~32000 inodes. > > I wonder if it's time to increase the default size of /var again. I would agree, even without portsnap. With things like MySQL using /var/db (if I remember) as the default it might be a way to avoid a few more mails to questions@ without impacting the normal user. Hard drives are pennies to the GB and always getting cheaper; I've been making 1-5gb /var's for awhile even on non-database servers just to have a little more wiggle room for logs. As a side note, I've always wished we had a selectable list of "auto" configure options, database server, web-server, minimalist, etc. -- Ryan Sommers ryans@gamersimpact.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F4F979.7080705>