Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:09:41 -0400 From: "C. Michailidis" <dinom@balstonresearch.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sysinstall automatic filesystem size generation. Message-ID: <200508290609.42070.dinom@balstonresearch.com> In-Reply-To: <000d01c5ac73$0e4fbb50$6b2a15ac@SMILEY> References: <000d01c5ac73$0e4fbb50$6b2a15ac@SMILEY>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 29 August 2005 04:24 am, you wrote: > Probably, but a template for something like this isn't simple unless > it's created as part of a general profile-based installer that would > inform sysinstall of the machine's purpose in life. For example, a Sure, I can understand this perfectly. And I agree 99%. Ultimately the "machine's purpose in life" is the most important factor. However, since this can often be an intangible factor (where exactly do you draw the line between server/workstation/embeded system/etc/etc) the sysinstall process needs (perhaps) to rely on the more concrete variables in the puzzle which are available. That is, I may install FreeBSD onto a machine without initially having a specific purpose for the system. In this case, the dominant variable (in my mind) becomes, quite simply... disk size. After all, I have no specific purpose for the system, it will be a general-purpose machine and in a sense "all other factors are equal". It struck me as peculiar that I could be installing to a disk over 200GB in size, indicate to sysinstall that it should layout the filesystems in its default manner... and I would actually end up with a /tmp (or /var or even /) that is 256MB (well, let's say 512MB with the new information Colin has given us). The numbers themselves don't matter in my mind, the fact that they are not a function of the disk size does. The truth is, they are related to the size of the disk (I noticed this while browsing the code for sysinstall) but they only vary if the size of the disk is *smaller* than some already small, fixed number. Effectively, we are taking a known variable that may fluctuate greatly (disk size) and completely ignoring it during installation. Pretty dumb, no? Obviously, this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Take it to an extreme and maybe I can convert you to my team. Imagine installing to a disk that is 500 terabytes in size... wouldn't it be odd (to say the least) for sysinstall to allocate some infinitesimally small fraction of the disk to /tmp? Isn't /tmp just a place to store temporary files? Isn't there the *possibility* that you are using your system correctly and yet still want to store a large temporary file? I agree, a general profile-based installer would be ideal. Unfortunately, we live in the real world and thus it may not be practical. This fact should not preclude us from making improvements which ARE practical AND *approximate* the ideal? The first thing that came to my mind was to base the sizes on the natural logarithm function. Natual log came to my mind because the existing implementation has a ceiling, I wanted "a wee bit" more - since ln grows slowly I'd have "the best of both worlds"? The more I think about it, the more I want to say the relationship should simply be linear. Bottom line, I don't know what function would be the *best* to use, but I do believe something like this (for starters) is practical and most likely superior to the current functionality. Many people probably agree with Colin... "these [values] are vast overkill for most systems" - I do too, but I believe this is a subjective matter. Having a 200GB disk (IMHO) is also vast overkill for most systems. Does this mean disk manufacturers should force a user to generate valid reasons as to why they need the disk space before selling them the disk drive? The question that needs to be answered (I suppose) is: can we think of a practical, yet more reasonable way of having sysinstall allocate space for the filesystems? It's my opinion that the answer is yes. I do not find it reasonable to always recommend that the user create the same size /, /var, and /tmp no matter how incredibly large (or small) the user's disk drive is. You may agree or disagree... I just pray to God I've made myself clear at this point, lol. Just my 2 cents, Dino
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200508290609.42070.dinom>