> On 2015/04/15 12:05, Vincent Gross wrote:
> > The default allocation is actually easy to rework right after a fresh
> > install, as /usr/src, /usr/obj and /home are at the end. Ssh as
> > root, kill /usr/src, /usr/obj and /home, optionally extend /usr/local,
> > and then repartition as you wish.
On 2015/04/15 12:05, Vincent Gross wrote:
> The default allocation is actually easy to rework right after a fresh
> install, as /usr/src, /usr/obj and /home are at the end. Ssh as
> root, kill /usr/src, /usr/obj and /home, optionally extend /usr/local,
> and then repartition as you wish.
I'm sorry
Am 15.04.2015 01:20 schrieb Ryan McBride:
On other systems where I don't know how the data will grow, I typically
configure them with something close to the auto layout, but a smaller
/home, and leave the remaining disk empty. When I get a feel for what
the data usage is in /var/ or /home or /usr
On 2015-04-15 Wed 12:05 PM |, Vincent Gross wrote:
>
> The default allocation is actually easy to rework right after a fresh
> install, as /usr/src, /usr/obj and /home are at the end. Ssh as
> root, kill /usr/src, /usr/obj and /home, optionally extend /usr/local,
> and then repartition as you wish
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 08:20:15AM +0900, Ryan McBride wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:27:17AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > But it seems people are expected to build a custom bsd.rd if they
> > > want something different so I'll bow out of this conversation.
> >
> > No, the situation is t
> Note: I don't use the auto-layout except on throwaway test installs
> as it never seems to give me the layout I need, and except for laptops
> I would prefer to never use the interactive installer at all.
The real problem here is that many people choose 1 partition.
Which implies trusting that
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:27:17AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > But it seems people are expected to build a custom bsd.rd if they
> > want something different so I'll bow out of this conversation.
>
> No, the situation is that less than 1% of the user community
> apparently have a secret usage
> The example I have is one of a cluster of about 50 small machines with
> 16GB flash cards each. Currently the alloc_big scheme is used by
> disklabel for these (as with anything > about 8GB, depending on RAM). On
> a 16GB flash card it will allocate about 17% of total space to /usr/src
> and
On 09/04/15 10:53, Theo de Raadt wrote:
If you have very small disk, disklabel will give you one partition.
No problem. DONE.
If you have ample disk, it will try to give you more partitions,
because the split partition scheme is MORE SECURE. It will stepwise
increase the number of partitions
> But it seems people are expected to build a custom bsd.rd if they
> want something different so I'll bow out of this conversation.
No, the situation is that less than 1% of the user community
apparently have a secret usage case, but never manage to explain it.
On April 9, 2015 9:33:57 AM GMT+02:00, Stuart Henderson
wrote:
>On 2015/04/09 09:13, Alexander Hall wrote:
>>
>> I don't think tweaking an existing auto label is unnecessary and
>overly . Hardcoding mount points and their sizes should be enough, and
>leave the rest unallocated.
>
>At least, s
On 2015/04/09 09:13, Alexander Hall wrote:
>
> I don't think tweaking an existing auto label is unnecessary and overly .
> Hardcoding mount points and their sizes should be enough, and leave the rest
> unallocated.
At least, specifying in % is pretty important.
But it seems people are expecte
On April 9, 2015 2:44:28 AM GMT+02:00, Stuart Henderson
wrote:
>On 2015/04/09 01:53, Alexander Hall wrote:
>> On April 8, 2015 9:13:27 AM GMT+02:00, Stuart Henderson
>> wrote:
>> >On 2015/04/07 20:02, Alex Wilson wrote:
>> >> On the topic of local tweaks to autoinstall, I was trying to use
>it
> Our autolabel sizes seem mostly based around desktop-type machines (though
> /usr/local is a bit too small these days, /usr/X11R6 acceptable but seems
> stingy, and there are probably equal numbers of those who would quite
> like to have /usr/ports and those who really wouldn't want to waste the
Our autolabel sizes seem mostly based around desktop-type machines (though
/usr/local is a bit too small these days, /usr/X11R6 acceptable but seems
stingy, and there are probably equal numbers of those who would quite
like to have /usr/ports and those who really wouldn't want to waste the
space).
> On 2015/04/09 01:53, Alexander Hall wrote:
> > On April 8, 2015 9:13:27 AM GMT+02:00, Stuart Henderson
> > wrote:
> > >On 2015/04/07 20:02, Alex Wilson wrote:
> > >> On the topic of local tweaks to autoinstall, I was trying to use it
> > >for a
> > >> bunch of blades with very limited disk the o
On 2015/04/09 01:53, Alexander Hall wrote:
> On April 8, 2015 9:13:27 AM GMT+02:00, Stuart Henderson
> wrote:
> >On 2015/04/07 20:02, Alex Wilson wrote:
> >> On the topic of local tweaks to autoinstall, I was trying to use it
> >for a
> >> bunch of blades with very limited disk the other day, and
On April 8, 2015 9:13:27 AM GMT+02:00, Stuart Henderson
wrote:
>On 2015/04/07 20:02, Alex Wilson wrote:
>> On the topic of local tweaks to autoinstall, I was trying to use it
>for a
>> bunch of blades with very limited disk the other day, and I really
>wanted to
>> make them just create a single
On 2015/04/07 20:02, Alex Wilson wrote:
> On the topic of local tweaks to autoinstall, I was trying to use it for a
> bunch of blades with very limited disk the other day, and I really wanted to
> make them just create a single slice for / and some swap.
..
> So that then I could put
>
> Use (W)ho
Am 07.04.2015 16:55 schrieb Kirill Bychkov:
disklabel = D\na b\n\n4g\n\na a\n\n\n\n/\np\nq\n
Oh, please yes. I know that this will be PITA around (non)escaping and
all,
but the default labelling just isnt cutting it.
+ _mode=$(sed -E '/^ *filename
"(.*\/)?auto_(install|upgrade)";$/!d;s//\2
t? (should it be "Disklabel" rather than
> little d, for consistency?)
>
>
I like the idea, because previously I had to build custom bsd.rd with tweaked
disklabel
to disable autopartitioning and just create one partition.
>
> On 06/04/15 23:48, Nathanael Rensen wrote:
>&
e interested in a patch to add this on all the platforms? Or
some other nicer way of doing it? (should it be "Disklabel" rather than
little d, for consistency?)
On 06/04/15 23:48, Nathanael Rensen wrote:
A couple of autoinstall(8) tweaks that I find useful.
I find it convenient to b
On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Robert Peichaer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 09:48:58PM +0800, Nathanael Rensen wrote:
> > A couple of autoinstall(8) tweaks that I find useful.
> >
> > I find it convenient to be able to specify a path to the response file.
>
On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 09:48:58PM +0800, Nathanael Rensen wrote:
> A couple of autoinstall(8) tweaks that I find useful.
>
> I find it convenient to be able to specify a path to the response file.
> I also prefer to use the DHCP supplied hostname rather than the MAC
> address.
A couple of autoinstall(8) tweaks that I find useful.
I find it convenient to be able to specify a path to the response file.
I also prefer to use the DHCP supplied hostname rather than the MAC
address.
Index: install.sub
===
RCS
25 matches
Mail list logo
