On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:04:10 +0100 Arthur Chance <free...@qeng-ho.org> wrote:
> As a matter of idle curiosity with a bit of education thrown in, why > 4GB for /var? The last time I installed a new machine I made / 1GB as > I'd found out from a previous install that 512MB wasn't really > enough, and then decided to make /var bigger than the Handbook said > as well and made it 3GB. This has turned out to be total overkill: > > art...@fileserver> df -h /var > Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on > /dev/ad10s1d 2.9G 205M 2.5G 8% /var > > I'm sure my use of this machine is very simple and nowhere near as > large as other people's but a leap of 4-16 times what it currently > suggests in the Handbook seems a bit excessive, especially if people > are installing onto older kit. OTOH, playing devil's advocate with > myself, disks are huge these days so why not? > I came up with that value based on discussion on IRC. I also thought that portsnap might take up quite a bit more than it actually does. It perhaps doesn't need updated from its current value. -- Bruce Cran _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"