That would require further documentation during install and people do not read as it is.<br><br>The constant posting in the forum about partitioning and failure to boot is damning evidence that people do not read.<br><br>So your proposal would need some very convincing way to make people read or they will complain!<br>
<br>Quyen<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Lars Engels <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lars.engels@0x20.net">lars.engels@0x20.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Here's a proposal: let the installer propose the settings according to the user's system. If it's amd64 with sufficient RAM, offer him ZFS, if it's i386 or not enough RAM, offer him UFS+SU+J and explain the pros and cons of having a single or separate partitions.<br>
<br>
BTW, I'd say that separate partitions are better when you want to encrypt your hard drive. In most cases it should be enough to encrypt /home and swap.<br>
<br>
<br>
"Kris Moore" <<a href="mailto:kris@pcbsd.org">kris@pcbsd.org</a>> schrieb:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
><br>
>"Roger Marquis" <<a href="mailto:marquis@roble.com">marquis@roble.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>>Andrei Kolu wrote:<br>
>>> In case of power failure during some write operations your filesystem<br>
>>> would be inconsistent, that means after restart your filesystem(s)<br>
>>> would be READ-ONLY. Now imagine that you got single / partition and<br>
>>> can't start fsck placed in /stand, you have to start your system from<br>
>>> livecd or something and hope that your partition scheme is not ruined.<br>
>><br>
>>Journalling is a better protection against boot-time fsck. At the very<br>
>>least ufs with soft-updates should be the default filesystem.<br>
>><br>
>>But what Andrei is advocating here is a read-only root. That is not the<br>
>>default now and, to the best of my knowledge nobody is seriously<br>
>>advocating that as a PC-BSD default. To create a read-only root you'd<br>
>>need to partition at least /tmp, /usr, and /var, and that would create<br>
>>more issues than it would solve because:<br>
>><br>
>> * Every filesystem that has to be mounted at boot is a point-of-failure.<br>
>><br>
>> * Unless you also mounted /home you'd need to symlink /usr/home. This<br>
>> adds another one or two points-of-failure as well as the path issues<br>
>> that to accompany directory symlinks.<br>
>><br>
>> * An unmountable /usr is worse than an an un-fsck'ed root partition<br>
>> for all but the most experienced end-users.<br>
>><br>
>> * Every intra-disk partition reduces the free space of all remaining<br>
>> partitions, and increases the risk of diskfull partitions.<br>
>><br>
>>> Disk full trouble from servers of workstations? With single /<br>
>>> partition your system would be unusable if it is full but with<br>
>>> multiple partitions you are able to use it and at least delete some<br>
>>> files.<br>
>><br>
>>Hasn't been my experience but then my systems have all used journalling<br>
>>filesystems for several years now. Plus, anyone who knows how to login<br>
>>to a diskfull system with multi-intra-disk partitions probably also knows<br>
>>how to "mount -o rw /".<br>
>><br>
>>> Also remember /usr partition where /usr/home directory with<br>
>>> all users files are stored. Now recall quota feature. You don't want<br>
>>> to set quota for your system processes, do you? Quota is set by<br>
>>> partition.<br>
>><br>
>>If you need quotas you need partitions no question, however, few<br>
>>end-users need quotas. If you install non-journalling filesystems you<br>
>>may also benefit from partitions, at the expense of increasing the<br>
>>chances you'll experience inconsistent non-root filesystems.<br>
>><br>
>>Bottom line, partitions within a disk create more points of failure than<br>
>>they eliminate. This is statistics 101. IMO, the defaults should<br>
>>reflect the fact that diskfull issues are more common than quotas and<br>
>>fsck issues for the average user. The keywords here are "probability"<br>
>>and "average user".<br>
>><br>
>>More importantly, and the bottom line for PC-BSD, end-users who<br>
>>experience diskfull problems due to unnecessary partitioning or fsck<br>
>>issues due to unjournalled filesystems are more likely to move to an OS<br>
>>with more intelligent defaults.<br>
>><br>
>>IME,<br>
>>Roger Marquis<br>
>>_______________________________________________<br>
>>Dev mailing list<br>
>><a href="mailto:Dev@lists.pcbsd.org">Dev@lists.pcbsd.org</a><br>
>><a href="http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/dev</a><br>
><br>
><br>
>If you want the best of both worlds, just switch to zfs. Using it here, and my zpool uses all the disk space, and creating mount points is a snap. I don't need to worry about running out of room on / or /usr, plus I can treat them as separate partitions. Or set compression and other options on the fly. :)<br>
><br>
><br>
>--<br>
>Kris Moore<br>
>PC-BSD / iXsystems<br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>Dev mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:Dev@lists.pcbsd.org">Dev@lists.pcbsd.org</a><br>
><a href="http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/dev</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div><font color="#888888">--<br>
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Dev@lists.pcbsd.org">Dev@lists.pcbsd.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>