Date: 16 Oct 2001 12:11:29 -0400 From: Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs newfs.8 newfs.c Message-ID: <0000156d03191407d1@[192.168.1.4]> In-Reply-To: Matt Dillon's message of "Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:56:53 -0700 (PDT)" References: <200110110851.f9B8ptf60343@freefall.freebsd.org><20011011112527.A54224@coffee.q9media.com><20011011154203.C44561@dragon.nuxi.com><20011013143225.B4527@ns2.freenix.org><20011013172706.A53976@dragon.nuxi.com><20011014160303.A22301@ns2.freenix.org><20011014194232.A50125@dragon.nuxi.com><00005ba2015f4b07d1@[192.168.1.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> writes:
>:> It has been said in the lists many times that 16k/2k is more efficient
>:> (and I'm using it myself by defautl now).
> You can use 16K/2K safely. Anything larger may fragment the buffer
> cache's KVA space and create issues. There are no known bugs (other
> then fragmentation), but people have sporatically reported weirdness
> with other combinations. There have been no solid bug reports.
>
From disklabel.c after my mods from a year or so ago:
(these are for >1GB partitions)
#define BIG_NEWFS_BLOCK 16384U
#define BIG_NEWFS_FRAG 4096U
#define BIG_NEWFS_CPG 64U
You (and others) passed on these patches; the 16k/4k/64 values I took
(except for cpg) from the CVS log for /usr/src/release/sysinstall/install.c
(now in Attic).
: Revision 1.244 Thu Aug 5 19:50:25 1999 UTC (2 years, 2 months ago) by phk
:
: 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.
So, do we really have problems with 16k/4k/64? If so, let's fix the problems.
Or should we reduce the defaults to 16k/2k? If so, what about existing
FS's with these values? If values above that are broken, should we
disable them in newfs, or at least print a warning?
--
Randell Jesup, Worldgate Communications, ex-Scala, ex-Amiga OS team
rjesup@wgate.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
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?0000156d03191407d1>