Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 12:52:32 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/release/sysinstall install.c label.c options.csysinstall.h Message-ID: <2769.935319152@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 21 Aug 1999 18:12:41 PDT." <37BF4E89.D3CD53C2@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <37BF4E89.D3CD53C2@gorean.org>, Doug writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> 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. The short answer is performance. But it is rather complicated really. I suggest you read the mail-archive for the fs@ list where this has been discussed recently. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2769.935319152>