Subject: RE: Lower ended drive sizes?
To: Gregg C Levine <email@example.com>
From: Jenkins, Graham K [IBM GSA] <Graham.K.Jenkins@team.telstra.com>
Date: 09/25/2000 14:23:19
I have several machines configured as Xterminals using less than 100Mb. So
should be able to get away with less than that - depending on whether you
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Woods [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, 25 September 2000 2:16 pm
> To: Gregg C Levine
> Cc: NetBSD Port-I386
> Subject: Re: Lower ended drive sizes?
> At a bare minimum, if you don't want the system sources, I think you can
> probably get by with around 240MB plus swap space and temp space. (My
> partition is using 67MB, and /usr (after discounting X11, sources, and
> /usr/pkg) uses around 171MB.) The useful /usr/pkg items could bloat that
> 2-300 MB, depending on your tastes.
> I know that I ran NetBSD very comfortably for a long time on a 699MB
> Certainly any drive that's even remotely new is likely to be plenty large
> enough for at least a spartan text editing system.