Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 08:03:39 +0700 From: Erich Dollansky <erich@alogreentechnologies.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@msu.edu>, Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> Subject: Re: One or Four? Message-ID: <201202190803.39548.erich@alogreentechnologies.com> In-Reply-To: <20120218213417.GB33662@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> References: <4F3ECF23.5000706@fisglobal.com> <4F3F8672.3090805@my.gd> <20120218213417.GB33662@gizmo.acns.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Sunday 19 February 2012 04:34:17 Jerry McAllister wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:07:30PM +0100, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > > > > So, Polytropon's three choice pattern is good. Or, I could even > suggest just two choices. > yes, three options is ok. > [ ] all in one + swap > Create one partition containing all subtrees > plus one swap partition. > > [ ] user-defined > Make your own partitioning selection manually. > (Both number and size of partitions) > with a reasonable way to specify partitions and sizes. > The old Sysinstall way is not bad, but if it obsolete, > then something as easy that fits the new GPT based system. > A normal user will use the first option here and get screwed when the file system got affected by a power failure. The second option is not an option for a general user. > But, that middle choice that Polytropon suggested is OK to include > if you think it is needed. /, /tmp, /usr, /var, [/home] +swap Yes, I strong urge you to leave this at least as an option. Just with a larger / slice of 1 or better 2GB. > > I don't see that this plan adds any significant complication or confusion. > Nor does it prevent any of the schemes people have been advocating or > requesting. You seem to forget normal users who just want to use the system. They do not think of recovery until it actually happens. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201202190803.39548.erich>