Re: Default FS Layout Too Small?

I use the auto defaults and frankly thats one of the. things in fbsd that I
have become quite fond of over these years. If that goes away Im going to
cry. If anything itd be nice if it would suggest a few different layouts and
possibly partions for more than just what it suggests. I prefer many
partitions myself but over the last year or so Ive used lvm2 and ext3 which
I can resize. Cant you resize those partitions later?

-Adele
(sent from my gphone!)

On Feb 27, 2009 2:00 AM, "Ruben de Groot" <mail25_at_bzerk.org> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 07:29:50PM +0000, Craig Rodrigues typed:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:10:25AM -0800, Sean Bruno wrote:
> > I would assume that the default would be much larger now-a-days. I think
> > a simple doubling to 1G would be sufficient.
>
> Is there any point these days to having sysinstall auto-default to
creating
> separate slices for /tmp, /var/, /usr........
> when setting up new systems, I've started just ignoring
> the sysinstall auto-defaults and making one big / partition
> and installing FreeBSD there....
>
> It seems every release we need to keep bumping up the size of
> the sysinstall auto-defaults because they are too small.
>
> This bites new users.

How could changing the defaults bite new users who are by definition
not used to any defaults yet?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"