From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 6 11:51:28 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A973B16A420 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:51:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gcubfg-freebsd-geom@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1195343D49 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:51:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gcubfg-freebsd-geom@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FGEF8-0004pF-Gr for freebsd-geom@freebsd.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:51:15 +0100 Received: from p508c266a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([80.140.38.106]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:51:14 +0100 Received: from christian.baer by p508c266a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:51:14 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org From: Christian Baer Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:42:39 +0100 (CET) Organization: Convenimus Projekt Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <20060306110924.GB53437@garage.freebsd.pl> X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p508c266a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (FreeBSD) Sender: news Subject: Re: geli(8) makes more room on drive X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:51:28 -0000 On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:09:24 +0100 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > Geli's provider (ad10s1d.eli) uses bigger sector (4096 bytes instead of > 512 bytes), which makes newfs to configure file system a bit different. > You can also observe smaller number of cylinder groups, etc. Would it be a good idea to reduce the sector size on the provider to 512 so as to fit the drive? Or would this just increase the overhead? Does newfs create gigantic frag-sizes as a result? Regards Chris