/ full system - Solaris

This is a discussion on / full system - Solaris ; On 2008-04-01 07:38:19 +0100, Ian Collins said: > Chris Ridd wrote: >> On 2008-04-01 00:55:04 +0100, Ian Collins said: >> >>> The new installer for SXDE does use more sensible defaults. >> >> .... and the installer for Indiana avoids ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: / full system

  1. Re: / full system

    On 2008-04-01 07:38:19 +0100, Ian Collins said:

    > Chris Ridd wrote:
    >> On 2008-04-01 00:55:04 +0100, Ian Collins said:
    >>
    >>> The new installer for SXDE does use more sensible defaults.

    >>
    >> .... and the installer for Indiana avoids the issue altogether by using
    >> ZFS.
    >>

    > It looks like we will have ZFS install support in SXCE within a couple
    > of months.


    For SPARC too? Cool/about time (delete as appropriate)

    Cheers,

    Chris


  2. Re: / full system

    Chris Ridd wrote:
    > On 2008-04-01 07:38:19 +0100, Ian Collins said:
    >
    >> Chris Ridd wrote:
    >>> On 2008-04-01 00:55:04 +0100, Ian Collins said:
    >>>
    >>>> The new installer for SXDE does use more sensible defaults.
    >>>
    >>> .... and the installer for Indiana avoids the issue altogether by using
    >>> ZFS.
    >>>

    >> It looks like we will have ZFS install support in SXCE within a couple
    >> of months.

    >
    > For SPARC too? Cool/about time (delete as appropriate)
    >

    Yes, both.

    --
    Ian Collins.

  3. Re: / full system

    In comp.unix.solaris Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > Wayne wrote:
    >> Dave Uhring wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:50:23 +0100, John L wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Dave Uhring" wrote in message
    >>>> newsan.2008.03.30.13.58.57.584940@yahoo.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>> ... already has what appears to be a huge drive. He just accepted
    >>>>> the default partitioning offered by the installer instead of using the
    >>>>> experience he should have by now. Certainly he has no common sense.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Heaven forfend that the default should be reasonable.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The OP has been posting here for years. Clearly he has sufficient
    >>> experience to have *known* that the default was inadequate. ...

    >>
    >>
    >> While all that is true, the default really should be redone to better
    >> reflect modern software requirements and disk sizes. The fact that
    >> any experienced (or at least well-read) SA should know of this problem
    >> and the obvious work-around, doesn't excuse having out-dated
    >> defaults. This is especially true with OpenSolaris, as a lot of
    >> newbies will install it and accept all defaults, as they should
    >> be able to.
    >>
    >> -Wayne

    >
    > My understanding is that "OpenSolaris" lets you "roll your" own and add
    > it to the code base.
    >
    > Let's design a reasonable set of defaults. Assume, for the sake of
    > argument, that the smallest possible disk is 10 GB. I suppose you could
    > shoe horn Solaris into something smaller than that, but for most users
    > these days 10 GB is a tiny disk! Also assume that we are doing a full
    > install (SUNWCxall).
    >
    > How should the layout be defaulted on a 10 GB disk? If we assume a 20
    > GB disk, how should it be defaulted? A 40 GB disk? An 80 GB disk? For
    > the 10 GB disk, I propose 4GB for / plus /usr, 2 GB for /var, 2 Gb for
    > swap, and 2 GB for /export.
    >
    > How do we want to default the size of swap? It depends on both the
    > available RAM and the amount of disk space we can afford to devote to
    > swap. Shall we assume a minimum of 512 MB for swap? Or can we get away
    > with 256 MB or even less?


    I've got Solaris 10 running on a number of old machines with 9GB drives.
    These aren't servers, so I keep partitioning simple:

    slice 0 / 8.5GB
    slice 1 (swap) 512MB
    slice 2 (whole disk)
    slice 7 mdb 12MB

    If you're installing it on something this small, it's not going to be a
    server environment, and there's really no need for breaking out either
    /var or even /export. It's been my experience that in these cases, the
    odds of someone filling up the root partition goes up with the number of
    partitions you have. Putting user directories into / is a risk, but the
    extra space in / usually compensates for it.

    (Regardless--all of my home directories are NFS mounted from a server, so
    the /export point is moot for me).

    Colin

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2