Thanks a lot to all that replied either in private email (Francisco),
or in the misc mailing list (Joachim, Robert, Will, Stuart, Peter,
Damian, Marc and Matthias).
I will try to reply to all in the thread right now. As I am not
a member of this mailing list I have not received a copy of the
Joachim Schipper wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 04:10:54PM -0600, Damian Wiest wrote:
I've had the misfortune of running AIX for a short time and am aware of
how Veritas Volume Manager encapsulates disks, but what's the
equivalent in OpenBSD? One benefit of those systems is that they allow
you
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:06:20PM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote:
Joachim Schipper wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 04:10:54PM -0600, Damian Wiest wrote:
I've had the misfortune of running AIX for a short time and am aware of
how Veritas Volume Manager encapsulates disks, but what's the
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 04:10:54PM -0600, Damian Wiest wrote:
I've had the misfortune of running AIX for a short time and am aware of
how Veritas Volume Manager encapsulates disks, but what's the
equivalent in OpenBSD? One benefit of those systems is that they allow
you to resize filesystems
You wrote:
try to outline the output of /etc/fstab, disklabel and df on a table:
-
Mounted on Type Sizebsize fsize
- -- -- - -
a / ffs64 MB 16384 2048
b swapswap 512 MB
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 05:55:27PM +0100, Igor Sobrado wrote:
Hello.
I have some questions related with the layout of the filesystems
on OpenBSD and hope someone will be able to help me. I must start
saying that I never had problems with this setup, but I certainly
would appreciate some
Robert Urban wrote:
to me, this just looks like a horrible mess. I have never understood
why people should be so keen on creating thousands of microscopic filesystems.
For me, the advantage of being able to have several classes of filesystem
content all take advantage of the available free
Robert Urban wrote:
to me, this just looks like a horrible mess. I have never understood
why people should be so keen on creating thousands of microscopic
filesystems.
For me, the advantage of being able to have several classes of filesystem
content all take advantage of the available free space
Joachim Schipper wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 05:55:27PM +0100, Igor Sobrado wrote:
- /usr/ports (is 512 MB enough for it?) I usually stay
at binary packages, but sometimes I need to build software
from source and would like to know the recommended space
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 05:55:27PM +0100, Igor Sobrado wrote:
Hello.
[snip]
2. Are the sizes of the filesystems right ones? I am thinking on
- /var (on the installation booklet provided with the OS
it is recommended a size of 200 MB for this filesystem,
I *never*
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 07:32:38PM +0100, Robert Urban wrote:
For example, how could /usr/X11R6 possibly represent a threat to eat all the
space is /usr? X11R6 content is static. (yes, I know, software packages
put stuff there, but for the purposes of this discussion it's static).
Actually,
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 03:52:36AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
space is /usr? X11R6 content is static. (yes, I know, software packages
put stuff there, but for the purposes of this discussion it's static).
Actually, no, on OpenBSD, software packages do not put stuff there.
Opemmotif does
12 matches
Mail list logo
