Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 15:35:34 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using a larger block size on large filesystems Message-ID: <31807.1007732134@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:45:22 PST." <200111241845.fAOIjM377587@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:45:22 PST, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Sheldon, I think you have a go to change the newfs default. Do it! Hi Matt, I already have patches for newfs, sysinstall and the tuning(7) manual page which simply make 16384/2048 the default. However, I remember people expressing concerns with using these parameters for very small filesystems. I can't find any negative performance impact for very small filesystems. The only other thing I can think of is what obrien suggested. He told me that it might be that people are wary of a filesystem that contains only a single cylinder group, as this means you only have one superblock. Is this really something to worry about? Is there some other reason why we shouldn't just make 16384/2048 the blanket default? Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?31807.1007732134>