On 07/02/10 15:38, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:04:10 +0100
Arthur Chance<[email protected]> 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.
I suspect whoever you were talking to probably has more of a clue than I
do. As a quick data point, I just ran "portsnap fetch update" while
another process did a "df /var; sleep 1" loop and /var increased by
about 30MB at its peak. That was a week after the last port update. I've
no idea how much space a "portsnap fetch extract" would take and would
rather not do one right now. Similarly I've no idea how much
freebsd-update might take.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
