file system on 9.0

Jerry McAllister jerrymc at
Sun Nov 20 16:21:52 UTC 2011

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:25:35AM +0000, Thomas Mueller wrote:

> from darcsis at (Denise H. G.):
> > I strongly advise that /usr and /usr/local reside on different
> > partitions. Furthermore, If you plan to run a desktop environment, your
> > /usr/local should be big enough, say 8G - 10G, to hold all stuff you
> > built from the ports. And putting /var on a separate partitiion is a
> > good idea, I think.
> I don't like to put /var on a separate partition because of the danger 
> of running short of space.  I had nervous moments when running 
> freebsd-update on the older computer and seeing the used part of /var grow.

For that very reason, I put /var on a separate partition.   Stuff being
written to /var is most likely to over run stuff and trash a / partition.


> I don't really see a need to put /usr/local on a separate partition, though conceivably you could build applications with both FreeBSD ports and NetBSD pkgsrc, but keep these separate.  NetBSD pkgsrc has been ported to other (quasi-)Unixes including FreeBSD.  Default directory corresponding to FreeBSD's /usr/local is /usr/pkg .
> I think I like FreeBSD ports better than NetBSD pkgsrc, the latter which I used only with NetBSD.
> I originally installed FreeBSD 9.0-BETA1 using bsdinstall on the USB stick, including the ports.
> There was a conflict when I ran "portsnap fetch update", that didn't work.  I had to run "portsnap fetch" and "portsnap extract", scrapping the ports tree from bsdinstall in favor of the fresh ports tree.  So now I know best to not install ports tree from bsdinstall; this would presumably apply for sysinstall too.
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at"

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list