From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 9 16:28:08 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7370716A419 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:28:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BC1E43D77 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:28:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F01E46C2E for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:28:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:28:06 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200606091451.k59EpQnt039643@lurza.secnetix.de> Message-ID: <20060609172713.A31718@fledge.watson.org> References: <200606091451.k59EpQnt039643@lurza.secnetix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Subject: Re: heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:28:08 -0000 On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > No reason I can think of to use UFS1, but that doesn't mean there isn't a > > bug lurking in UFS1. > > If he doesn't need UFS2 features, using UFS1 will save some space, because > inode data is smaller in UFS1 (128 vs. 256 bytes per inode). However, that > really doesn't matter much if he reduces the inode density as I recommended. > > On a 300 GB file system using the default newfs parameters, you have about > 36 million inodes. So using UFS1 will save about 4500 MB of space (vs. > UFS2). However, with an inode density of 2^18 there are only 1 million > inodes, so UFS1 makes only a difference of 136 MB. Ah, I took "A few very large files" to mean "A few very large files that are probably too large for UFS1 to represent, as very large is getting very large lately" :-). Switching to UFS1 under those circumstances would be problematic. Robert N M Watson