Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:12:20 -0500 From: "Rick C. Petty" <rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Writing contigiously to UFS2? Message-ID: <20070926031219.GB34186@keira.kiwi-computer.com> In-Reply-To: <20070922022524.X43853@delplex.bde.org> References: <46F3A64C.4090507@fluffles.net> <46F3B4B0.40606@freebsd.org> <fd0em7$8hn$1@sea.gmane.org> <20070921131919.GA46759@in-addr.com> <fd0gk8$f0d$2@sea.gmane.org> <20070921133127.GB46759@in-addr.com> <20070922022524.X43853@delplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 04:10:19AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > of disk can be mapped. I get 180MB in practice, with an inode bitmap > size of only 3K, so there is not much to be gained by tuning -i but I disagree. There is much to be gained by tuning -i: 224.50 MB per CG vs. 183.77 MB.. that's a 22% difference. However, the biggest gain by tuning -i is the loss of extra (unused) inodes. Care should be used with the -i option-- running out of inodes when you have gigs of free space could be very frustrating. But I newfs all my volumes knowing an approximate inode density based on already-existing files and a minor fudge factor. The only time I ran out of inodes with this method was due to a calculation error on my part. > more to be gained by tuning -b and -f (several doublings are reasonable). I completely agree with this. It's unfortunate that newfs doesn't scale the defaults here based on the device size. Before someone dives in and commits any adjustments, I hope they do sufficient testing and post their results on this mailing list. -- Rick C. Petty
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070926031219.GB34186>