From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 7 0:24:21 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 7 00:24:18 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (placeholder-dcat-1076843399.broadbandoffice.net [64.47.83.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB3037B401 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:24:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id eB78LeQ07926; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:21:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:21:40 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200012070821.eB78LeQ07926@earth.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: A G F Keahan , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Optimal UFS parameters References: <58936.976176750@critter> 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 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