Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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 +0000 (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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87mxbrdji3.fsf>