Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 21:13:40 +0800 From: darcsis@gmail.com (Denise H. G.) To: "Thomas Mueller" <mueller6727@bellsouth.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: file system on 9.0 Message-ID: <87mxbrdji3.fsf@pluton.xbsd.name> In-Reply-To: <4ec8e3b0.8127440a.0cc5.6f9eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> (Thomas Mueller's message of "Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:25:35 %2B0000 (GMT)") References: <87zkfsca5a.fsf@pluton.xbsd.name> <4ec8e3b0.8127440a.0cc5.6f9eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2011/11/20 at 19:25, "Thomas Mueller" <mueller6727@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > from darcsis@gmail.com (Denise H. G.): >> I strongly advise that /usr and /usr/local reside on different >> partitions. Furthermore, If you plan to run a desktop environment, >> your /usr/local should be big enough, say 8G - 10G, to hold all >> stuff you built from the ports. And putting /var on a separate >> partitiion is a good idea, I think. > >> You can find detailed information on how to lay out and size your >> partitions in tuning(7) either locally or online. > > The one directory I really want to put on a separate partition is > /home . That way, you can fully rebuild/redo your system and keep user > data. > Yes. I always put /home on a separate partition. Actually, my /home is on a ZFS partition which is of more scalability and easier snapshots. > I don't like to put /var on a separate partition because of the danger > of running short of space. I had nervous moments when running > freebsd-update on the older computer and seeing the used part of /var > grow. I always size /var to 2G or 3G, which is typical for me. I seldom run freebsd-update, but upgrade from sources instead. I only encountered problems with Xorg that crashed filling up /var with core dumps... > > I don't really see a need to put /usr/local on a separate partition, > though conceivably you could build applications with both FreeBSD > ports and NetBSD pkgsrc, but keep these separate. NetBSD pkgsrc has > been ported to other (quasi-)Unixes including FreeBSD. Default > directory corresponding to FreeBSD's /usr/local is /usr/pkg . > It is long before I started thinking of joining /usr and /usr/local into one partition. However, my current installation dates back to FreeBSD 6 or 7. Many things changed exept the filesystem layout. > I think I like FreeBSD ports better than NetBSD pkgsrc, the latter > which I used only with NetBSD. > > I originally installed FreeBSD 9.0-BETA1 using bsdinstall on the USB > stick, including the ports. > > There was a conflict when I ran "portsnap fetch update", that didn't > work. I had to run "portsnap fetch" and "portsnap extract", scrapping > the ports tree from bsdinstall in favor of the fresh ports tree. So > now I know best to not install ports tree from bsdinstall; this would > presumably apply for sysinstall too. I guess 'portsnap fetch update' is run only after the ports tree is there. For a fresh install of the ports tree, 'portsnap fetch extract' is the correct way. For me, I only pull the ports tree with 'portsnap'. That way, I can complete a fresh install of FreeBSD in less than 20 minutes. > > Tom > > > -- If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87mxbrdji3.fsf>