Gleaned from /usr/src/usr.sbin/sysinstall/label.c:
#define ROOT_DEFAULT_SIZE 256
#define USR_DEFAULT_SIZE3072
#define VAR_DEFAULT_SIZE256
#define TMP_DEFAULT_SIZE256
#define HOME_DEFAULT_SIZE USR_DEFAULT_SIZE
//yada yada
On Sunday 28 August 2005 11:37 pm, you wrote:
> I don't really understand what you're so worked up about: if you don't
> like the defaults, don't use them.
Come on now, Dave. I know that you don't really mean this. You are not a
zombie, are you? After all, 'like' is an analog, subjective term
On Sunday 28 August 2005 11:57 pm, you wrote:
> For anything over a 9gb disk, I just make one big / partition. If you
> sub partition, you'll always end up filling one (either /var or /tmp
> quickly or /usr eventually) and wish you had picked different sizes.
>
This is a very straight-forward w
On Monday 29 August 2005 02:23 am, Colin Percival wrote:
> 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
On Monday 29 August 2005 02:51 am, you wrote:
> The handbook
> (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disk-organization.html)
>
>
> has quite a sensible discussion about this:
I knew that there was a reason I liked using sysinstall's automatic filesystem
generation feature
On Monday 29 August 2005 04:24 am, you wrote:
> Probably, but a template for something like this isn't simple unless
> it's created as part of a general profile-based installer that would
> inform sysinstall of the machine's purpose in life. For example, a
Sure, I can understand this perfectly.
On Monday 29 August 2005 06:09 am, we left the discussion here:
>
> <...> Isn't it safe to make some of the default sizes a
> wee bit larger? That is, a 256mb /tmp and /var doesn't seem
> "appropriate" if you have one of these massive modern disk
> drives. For christ's sake, I'd gladly give
