Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 16:17:35 EET From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail.ru> To: grog@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: sheldonh@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs newfs.8 Message-ID: <E16CiIk-0002JG-00@smtp3.port.ru> In-Reply-To: <20011208104800.A1696@monorchid.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:48:00 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Friday, 7 December 2001 at 18:42:25 +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Sheldon Hearn wrote: > >> > >> sheldonh 2001/11/27 11:53:15 PST > >> > >> Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_4) > >> sbin/newfs newfs.8 > >> Log: > >> MFC: rev 1.44 - 1.46: > >> > >> Following on from 1.26.2.11, reintroduce the now corrected example > >> for using larger block/frag sizes and explain that 8:1 is the optimal > >> block/frag ratio. > > > > This is very questionable topic, at least from the space efficience > > POV. For example, I found that on my development system using 16:2 > > (5-CURRENT, /usr/ports + /usr/src) some 300MB are wasted in fragments > > compared with the same partition formatted with 8:1. I would suggest > > to extend this para explaining that 16:2 could result in a huge space > > wastage when there are large number of small files on the fs (such as > > /usr/ports or /usr/src) and 8:1 is better suited for such cases. > > I think you're misunderstanding. We're talking about a ratio here, > not a size. 16:2 is the same ratio as 8:1. I don't think so. The part of manpage in question explicitly states that 16K/2K is better than default 8K/1K. My point is that a note should be added warning user that 16K/2K might result in a significant space wastage. -Maxm 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?E16CiIk-0002JG-00>