Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:10:56 -0800
From:      Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com>
To:        Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>
Cc:        Sean Bruno <sean.bruno@dsl-only.net>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Default FS Layout Too Small?
Message-ID:  <bb4a86c70902241210nc89cbf8v373da74e5b4f1a09@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49A44878.30707@gmx.de>
References:  <1235502625.4345.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <49A44878.30707@gmx.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Christoph Mallon
<christoph.mallon@gmx.de> wrote:
> Sean Bruno schrieb:
>>
>> I noted that if I choose the auto defaults for my F/S layout, sysinstall
>> will not reserve enough space for root(512MB?). =A0This is just barely
>> enough to recompile and install an updated kernel. =A0Much more than tha=
t
>> and the F/S is full.
>>
>> I would assume that the default would be much larger now-a-days. I think
>> a simple doubling to 1G would be sufficient.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> You are not supposed to compile stuff (or put any other large and often
> changing stuff) on the root fs.

uhmmm.... i _think_ he is talking about the fact that 512mb root fs is
barely enough to keep /boot/kernel/ and /boot/kernel.old/ together.
surely you agree that keeping previous (working) copy of the kernel is
a "really good idea" when trying out new kernel. i personally have
been bitten by the same problem. spinning hard drives are _really_ big
and cheap those days, so i would say we probably should increase
default root fs size.

thanks,
max



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bb4a86c70902241210nc89cbf8v373da74e5b4f1a09>