yes, that's quite generous. why isn't /tmp just an mfs mount though?
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Colin Percival wrote: > C. Michailidis wrote: > > Remember, I'm talking about the 'path of least resistance', I understand > > that > > I could label the slice manually with any number of different > > configurations. > > The issue I was hoping to shed some light on is... "Can the > > auto-configuration > > mechanism stand to be improved?". Is it reasonable (in today's era of dirt > > cheap > > disk space) to have a mere 256MB allocated to /tmp (or /var or even /) by > > default? > > The default sizes are now currently 512 MB for / and /tmp, and 1024 MB plus > space for one crashdump on /var. If anything, these are vast overkill for > most > systems; on /, for example, it is hard to imagine a situation where a normal > user would use more than 150MB of space unless they were doing something which > they shouldn't be doing. > > Colin Percival > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"