Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:21:40 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: A G F Keahan <ak@freenet.co.uk>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Optimal UFS parameters Message-ID: <200012070821.eB78LeQ07926@earth.backplane.com> References: <58936.976176750@critter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: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
I think Bruce swears by 4K (page-sized) fragments. Not a bad
way to go. I use 2K because I (and others) put in so much hard work
to fix all the little niggling bugs in the VM system related to partial
page validation and, damn it, I intend to use those features!
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012070821.eB78LeQ07926>