9 ms·

> In general it's safer to use a smaller root partition and a separate one for /home. However, NetBSD worked just fine off a single full-disk partition. Right

> In general it's safer to use a smaller root partition and a separate one for /home. However, NetBSD worked just fine off a single full-disk partition. Right until there is an update or anything and a bootloader or one of its required files gets written past the 8GB barrier, rendering your system unbootable.

luke8086 2y ago
Yeah, I suspect so! To be honest, I wouldn't notice this issue at all, if it wasn't for FreeBSD which refused to boot right off the bat. It has a more advanced bootloader though, so perhaps it does some extra sanity checks.
- AshamedCaptain 2y ago
  Of course you're not going to notice anything until it breaks -- you didn't write more than 8GB of files to the root partition yet, I guess...
likeabatterycar 2y ago
Better or worse than OpenBSD and its ridiculous baker's dozen partitions and mount points? You know __for your protection__ meanwhile they fill up if you install more than a few packages or heaven forbid build a custom kernel when 80% of /home and /var is free and you realize you're screwed and have to start all over.
- reidrac 2y ago
  Been there, done that. Feels painful, but that's because you're learning. My favourite, too small /boot in Linux that prevents updating the kernel if you keep more than 3 versions, and autoremove doesn't seem to happen automatically. I had to install a new Debian last night. Manual partitioning and I'm quite happy with the results. I couldn't do that without all my past mistakes.
  - likeabatterycar 2y ago
    Debian's partitioner is really buggy and a major pain point for me. Won't support a backup EFI partition, creating and booting from RAID volumes is really tricky, many other issues. Issues that are resolved or nonexistent in RedHat, Ubuntu, and even Windows. I've had it create unbootable GRUB configurations many times - it only tells you at the very end. I now make the partitions beforehand in fdisk then choose them in the installer. Which for some bizarre reason is not included in the install image; you have to boot into rescue for that.
jmclnx 2y ago
>Right until there is an update or anything and a bootloader or one of its required files gets written past the 8GB barrier, rendering your system unbootable. I do not fully understand this. Can you add specifics ? To me the article indicates he used a small root partition. Or did I miss something ? A little hint for people (like me) who have a separate partition for /usr, /var, /tmp and /home due to cgd encryption or other reasons. If using wireless, you may need this in /etc/rc.conf to force a mount before daemons kick off. In my case, without this wireless breaks. critical_filesystems_local="/var /usr /tmp"
- AshamedCaptain 2y ago
  > To me the article indicates he used a small root partition. Or did I miss something ? The article explicitly says a single full disk partition was used -- it's right on the quote I used. In any case, this is a BIOS limitation affecting all bootloaders from all operating systems. It has nothing to do with any particular BSD or OS, and you do not need to care if your computer is less than 20 years old.
  - luke8086 2y ago
    Yeah, you're right, sorry for the confusion! I've just rewritten this part to make it more clear.

luke8086 2y ago

Yeah, I suspect so! To be honest, I wouldn't notice this issue at all, if it wasn't for FreeBSD which refused to boot right off the bat. It has a more advanced bootloader though, so perhaps it does some extra sanity checks.

AshamedCaptain 2y ago
Of course you're not going to notice anything until it breaks -- you didn't write more than 8GB of files to the root partition yet, I guess...

likeabatterycar 2y ago

Better or worse than OpenBSD and its ridiculous baker's dozen partitions and mount points? You know __for your protection__ meanwhile they fill up if you install more than a few packages or heaven forbid build a custom kernel when 80% of /home and /var is free and you realize you're screwed and have to start all over.

reidrac 2y ago
Been there, done that. Feels painful, but that's because you're learning. My favourite, too small /boot in Linux that prevents updating the kernel if you keep more than 3 versions, and autoremove doesn't seem to happen automatically. I had to install a new Debian last night. Manual partitioning and I'm quite happy with the results. I couldn't do that without all my past mistakes.
- likeabatterycar 2y ago
  Debian's partitioner is really buggy and a major pain point for me. Won't support a backup EFI partition, creating and booting from RAID volumes is really tricky, many other issues. Issues that are resolved or nonexistent in RedHat, Ubuntu, and even Windows. I've had it create unbootable GRUB configurations many times - it only tells you at the very end. I now make the partitions beforehand in fdisk then choose them in the installer. Which for some bizarre reason is not included in the install image; you have to boot into rescue for that.

jmclnx 2y ago

>Right until there is an update or anything and a bootloader or one of its required files gets written past the 8GB barrier, rendering your system unbootable. I do not fully understand this. Can you add specifics ? To me the article indicates he used a small root partition. Or did I miss something ? A little hint for people (like me) who have a separate partition for /usr, /var, /tmp and /home due to cgd encryption or other reasons. If using wireless, you may need this in /etc/rc.conf to force a mount before daemons kick off. In my case, without this wireless breaks. critical_filesystems_local="/var /usr /tmp"

AshamedCaptain 2y ago
> To me the article indicates he used a small root partition. Or did I miss something ? The article explicitly says a single full disk partition was used -- it's right on the quote I used. In any case, this is a BIOS limitation affecting all bootloaders from all operating systems. It has nothing to do with any particular BSD or OS, and you do not need to care if your computer is less than 20 years old.
- luke8086 2y ago
  Yeah, you're right, sorry for the confusion! I've just rewritten this part to make it more clear.