From owner-cvs-all  Sat Dec  8  6:18:21 2001
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp3.port.ru (mx3.port.ru [194.67.57.13])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5BD9E37B416; Sat,  8 Dec 2001 06:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [193.108.237.239] (helo=notebook.vega.com)
	by smtp3.port.ru with esmtp (Exim 3.14 #1)
	id 16CiIk-0002JG-00; Sat, 08 Dec 2001 17:18:04 +0300
To: grog@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: sheldonh@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG,
	cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail.ru>
Reply-To: sobomax@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs newfs.8
X-Mailer: Pygmy (v0.5.13)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 16:17:35 EET
In-Reply-To: <20011208104800.A1696@monorchid.lemis.com>
Message-Id: <E16CiIk-0002JG-00@smtp3.port.ru>
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <cvs-all.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20cvs-all>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20cvs-all>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

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