From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 7 0:12:38 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 7 00:12:36 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (flutter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4122937B400 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:12:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eB78CVL58938; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:12:31 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: A G F Keahan Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Optimal UFS parameters In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:52:31 +0200." <3A2F097F.15D592DD@freenet.co.uk> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 09:12:30 +0100 Message-ID: <58936.976176750@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <3A2F097F.15D592DD@freenet.co.uk>, A G F Keahan writes: >What parameters should I choose for a large (say, 60 or 80Gb) >filesystem? I remember a while ago someone (phk?) conducted a survey, >but nothing seems to have come of it. In the meantime, the capacity of >an average hard drive has increased tenfold, and the defaults have >become even less reasonable. > >What's the current consensus of opinion? > >newfs -b ????? -f ????? -c ????? Right now I tend to use: -b 16384 -f 4096 -c 159 -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message