Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 00:47:11 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1012390758.50933b@mired.org>, chip <chip@wiegand.org>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bad disk partitioning policies (was: "Re: FreeBSD Intaller (was "Re: ... RedHat ...")") Message-ID: <3C526D0F.A27A59E7@mindspring.com> References: <20020123124025.A60889@HAL9000.wox.org> <3C4F5BEE.294FDCF5@mindspring.com> <20020123223104.SM01952@there> <p0510122eb875d9456cf4@[10.0.1.3]> <15440.35155.637495.417404@guru.mired.org> <p0510123fb876493753e0@[10.0.1.3]> <15440.53202.747536.126815@guru.mired.org> <p05101242b876db6cd5d7@[10.0.1.3]> <15441.17382.77737.291074@guru.mired.org> <p05101245b8771d04e19b@[10.0.1.3]> <20020125212742.C75216@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Matthew D. Fuller" wrote: > The space allocation isn't intended to 'keep user-level program from > filling up the disk', it's intended to allow the fragmentation-avoidance > to work. Size doesn't matter; percentage does. I've heard somewhere > (from Terry, I think) that 15% is the 'optimal' setting for this, and > 10% was a compromise that wasn't too far below optimal, but gave that 5% > of extra available space. 8% is the current default in newfs(8). Donald Knuth, "Seminumerical Algorithms: Sorting and Searching". 85% of load is the point at which a perfect hash starts getting collisions from random data with a probabiliy of higher than 1.005. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C526D0F.A27A59E7>