From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Oct 17 10:39: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D95A37B408 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.11.6/8.9.1) id f9HHctk99143; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:38:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:38:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200110171738.f9HHctk99143@apollo.backplane.com> To: Randell Jesup Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs newfs.8 newfs.c 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]> <0000157003191707d1@[192.168.1.4]> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :Resend: It appears that the mailer at freebsd.org doesn't like my company's :mailer and/or reverse-DNS info. Matt; if this doesn't show up in -arch, :please post it on my behalf. It showed up. :>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 The answer is: we don't know. We *used* to have problems with non 8:1 ratios, but nobody has done any definitive tests recently and despite Poul's labeling it all FUD, I am unwilling to allow newfs to default to anything other then an 8:1 ratio. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message