Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 09 Dec 2001 01:17:19 -0800
From:      Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.freebsd.org>
To:        Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc:        Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely8.cicely.de>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl>, "David O'Brien" <dev-null@NUXI.com>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Proposed auto-sizing patch to sysinstall (was Re: Using a larger block size on large filesystems) 
Message-ID:  <50979.1007889439@winston.freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: Message from Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>  of "Sat, 08 Dec 2001 18:23:20 PST." <200112090223.fB92NKf34327@apollo.backplane.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>     Ah well.  Perhaps my expectations were a little too high.

They were. :-)

One of the "bigger picture points" I tried to make at the beginning of
my own counter-arguments were that once you try and expand the set of
default filesystems, you're defining contraversial policy whether you
like it or not and people have as many views on filesystem layout as
they do on window managers or screen editors.  The set of defaults
currently in sysinstall certainly does piss people off and it, by
definition, cannot even avoid doing so because it defines a fixed
policy.  I knew that going into it and hence chose the absolute
minimum number of filesystems to make such policy decisions about.

It absolutely goes without saying that filesystems should be
auto-sized by having minimum and perferred sizes which can also be
"floating" sizes, not simply one fixed size.  It also goes without
saying that it would be a really cool interface feature if deleting a
filesystem caused its space to go to the nearest float-sized
filesystem, or if growing/shrinking a filesystem could also produce
that effect in its relevant neighbor(s).

However, if you're going to change default creation policy at all
(and, again, this is why I've stayed away from the idea for so long),
you need to at least provide a good set of canned policies so that
people can cycle through them and find the one which pisses them off
the least, including the default of "minimum" if they already like the
current behavior.  That will give you both your cake and a nice corner
to eat it in.

- Jordan

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50979.1007889439>