/ almost out of space just after installation

RW rwmaillists at googlemail.com
Sun Oct 11 00:44:02 UTC 2009

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Richard Mahlerwein <mahlerrd at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The only time I can
> really think I'd want /tmp to be in RAM is if I already had too much
> RAM for the needs of the box - otherwise, just give me the RAM...

But it wouldn't actually be a ram disk, that's just just a misnomer
that people, who ought to know better, are throwing around. It
would probably be tmpfs.

> While I'm reasonably happy rolling my own FS sizes, I would be even
> happier if I didn't have to.  As long as we're doing the wish list,
> I'd guess for this (all numbers significantly flexible):
> Drive < 16 GB = keep current layout?
> Drive > 16 and < 40 GB = 
> / = 1 GB
> swap = 1.5x RAM 
> /tmp = 2 GB
> /var = 2 GB
> /usr = remaining space

2 GB each for /var and /tmp is far too high for such  small disks, I
wouldn't want to squander 4GB like that much below a TB. It's a figure
that's hardly ever going to be "about right" either for /tmp or /var,
when it isn't far too big, it's likely to be too small.

> Drive > 40 GB = 
> / = 1 GB
> swap = 1.5x RAM 
> /tmp = 2 GB
> /var = 2 GB
> /usr = 1/2 of remaining space, min 20 GB, max 35 GB
> /home = everything else.

Having a home directory separate from /usr is often a good idea, but
making it part of the default install is a really bad idea IMO. 

A desktop user with a largish disk may want  98% of it
under /home, a server may need next to nothing under /home. The amount
needed for /usr also varies enormously.

It's so hard to come-up with sensible values that the only sensible
thing to do is leave them on the same partition by default. It's not
exactly rocket science to add your own /home partition.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list