Hi all, Thanks for all the information. I had read disklabel(8) and my indication of /usr/src was actually my mistake, it has indeed its own partition. Sorry for that.
My disk has 80 GB so it falls under the >7GB partitioning. Regarding the fact that the installer is flexible, I know, I was only pointing out that maybe the default value for /usr is a bit small. Somebody who wants to build a lot of ports probably knows enough to change the default value. For a novice user, they’re going to be constrained with the current defaults when they want to compile some big port — that’s my case, I can’t build php-5.6 because of disk space, and I’ve run “make clean” on all subfolders so there is nothing else to get space from. Anyway, my goal bringing this up was to try to accommodate the sizes. a bit better for novice users who run with the default system partitioning. Thanks, Carlos > On 29 Jun 2015, at 00:46, Alexander Salmin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Read up on the Automatic disk allocation chapter in the disklabel manual as > mentioned by Raf. Basically partitions are dynamically allocated based on > total disk-space with a few exceptions - the following paths have their own > partitions on disks larger than 7G (so you are mistaken about the /usr/src > part, as Raf said). Maybe you should use "make clean" after your jobs? What > exactly is using all your disk space? I suggest reading "15.3.6 - Cleaning up > after a build" at http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html > > 2G /usr/src > 2G /usr/obj > 10G /usr/local > 1G /usr/X11R6 > > Alexander > > On 2015-06-29 00:42, Raf Czlonka wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 11:15:20PM BST, Carlos Fenollosa wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> Hi Carlos, >> >>> I’m a new OpenBSD user, so please forgive me if this topic has been >>> discussed thoroughly already. >>> >>> I installed a new box using the default partitioning (2GB for >>> /usr) and I found that it’s a bit insufficient since /usr/ports, >>> /usr/xenocara and /usr/src hang from there on the same partition, and >>> eat up most of those 2GB. I’ve searched online and some users also >>> found the same problem >>> >>> Do you think it would be a good idea to increase that number to about >>> 5GB? I could try to write a simple patch for it. >> It all depends on the size of your disk but most likely you are mistaken. >> >> man 8 disklabel >> >> Raf
