From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Dec 8 12:55:55 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 6E96E37B42C; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:55:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.11.6/8.9.1) id fB8Ktaf18457; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:55:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:55:36 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200112082055.fB8Ktaf18457@apollo.backplane.com> To: Mike Smith Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Marko Zec , "Louis A. Mamakos" , Sheldon Hearn , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using a larger block size on large filesystems References: <200112082050.fB8Ko1T01347@mass.dis.org> 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 :PERSONALLY, I disagree. 1.5GB is too small these days; 2GB is a better :choice. 8) : :Then again, I work for a company that puts everything in /System/Library, :so I guess I should be quiet now. 8) My current patch set uses a 3G target. 2G is reasonable, but it cuts it fairly close if you do not have a separate /usr/obj and maintain builds for both -current and -stable (eats +1G!). Anything smaller then 2G is definitely too small. Maybe I should adjust the code so if the hard drive has a huge amount of space and all targets are met, it will further increase the size of certain partitions (/var, /var/tmp, /usr) to a new 'power' target. (we'll give /home a power target too so it doesn't get left out in the cold). However, I think I'll let the current patch set go through a commit round before I further complexify it. (I also need to add a /tmp softlink capability in a future commit round). -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message