Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 10:32:54 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <42F4F446.90304@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20050806143812.GA76296@over-yonder.net> References: <42F47C0D.2020704@freebsd.org> <20050806112118.GA7708@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20050806143812.GA76296@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > I doubt it presents much problem as regards the 'running out' issue > anyway. Things like fsck time, maybe. But I've got a rather oldish > and rather smallish /var, and: > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity iused ifree %iused Mounted on > /dev/da1s1f 992M 266M 647M 29% 3802 250148 1% /var 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. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F4F446.90304>