Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:38:14 +0100 From: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> To: Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /boot is full after running "make installkernel" on FreeBSD 8.0 Message-ID: <20100702153814.00000aa2@unknown> In-Reply-To: <4C2DF1DA.2020503@qeng-ho.org> 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> <4C2DF1DA.2020503@qeng-ho.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:04:10 +0100 Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> wrote: > 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? > I came up with that value based on discussion on IRC. I also thought that portsnap might take up quite a bit more than it actually does. It perhaps doesn't need updated from its current value. -- Bruce Cran
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100702153814.00000aa2>