Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:04:10 +0100
From:      Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org>
To:        Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: /boot is full after running "make installkernel" on FreeBSD 8.0
Message-ID:  <4C2DF1DA.2020503@qeng-ho.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100702131315.00007c89@unknown>
References:  <AANLkTil7rb8_YNbGPfwsNt1_Zn4hdOr9hTpGwVwTEbrF@mail.gmail.com>	<20100701212112.GA28138@gizmo.acns.msu.edu>	<AANLkTinLgvd9GLP8RXeiWcowBoFxSeZSJLMHjCFq8jGR@mail.gmail.com>	<4C2D9659.3060208@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20100702131315.00007c89@unknown>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/02/10 13:13, Bruce Cran wrote:
> I have a task on my TODO list to increase the sizes of the partitions in
> sysinstall: for example / goes to 1GB, /var to 4GB. I hope to commit
> the code in the next couple of weeks.

As a matter of idle curiosity with a bit of education thrown in, why 4GB 
for /var? The last time I installed a new machine I made / 1GB as I'd 
found out from a previous install that 512MB wasn't really enough, and 
then decided to make /var bigger than the Handbook said as well and made 
it 3GB. This has turned out to be total overkill:

arthur@fileserver> df -h /var
Filesystem      Size    Used   Avail Capacity  Mounted on
/dev/ad10s1d    2.9G    205M    2.5G     8%    /var

I'm sure my use of this machine is very simple and nowhere near as large 
as other people's but a leap of 4-16 times what it currently suggests in 
the Handbook seems a bit excessive, especially if people are installing 
onto older kit. OTOH, playing devil's advocate with myself, disks are 
huge these days so why not?




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C2DF1DA.2020503>