Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:28:06 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock Message-ID: <20060609172713.A31718@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200606091451.k59EpQnt039643@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <200606091451.k59EpQnt039643@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060609172713.A31718>