From owner-cvs-all  Sat Aug 21 18:12:50 1999
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from dt011n65.san.rr.com (dt010nb9.san.rr.com [204.210.12.185])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1DCE2154BC; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 18:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from Doug@gorean.org)
Received: from gorean.org (master [10.0.0.2])
	by dt011n65.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA97625;
	Sat, 21 Aug 1999 18:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from Doug@gorean.org)
Message-ID: <37BF4E89.D3CD53C2@gorean.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 18:12:41 -0700
From: Doug <Doug@gorean.org>
Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT-0815 i386)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/release/sysinstall install.c label.c 
 options.csysinstall.h
References: <199908051950.MAA13220@freefall.freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> 
> phk         1999/08/05 12:50:27 PDT
> 
>   Modified files:
>     release/sysinstall   install.c label.c options.c sysinstall.h
>   Log:
>   Make the newfs parameters a global option.
> 
>   The default is still "-b 8192 -f 1024" but my experiments show that
>   "-b 16384 -f 4096 -c 100" is a more sensible value for modern
>   disksizes.

	I'm curious, why is making the block size bigger a better thing? I would
think that with disks getting bigger all the time we'd want to decrease the
block size to avoid the wastage of unused partial blocks being multiplied
over very large disks. This is a legitimate request for info, I'm not an fs
expert by any means. 

Thanks,

Doug


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message