From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Oct 15 14:26:28 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (earth-nat-cw.backplane.com [208.161.114.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F9037B40B; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id f9FLQE956721; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:26:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:26:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200110152126.f9FLQE956721@earth.backplane.com> To: Matthew Jacob Cc: Cyrille Lefevre , Ollivier Robert , Peter Wemm , "David O'Brien" , , Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs newfs.8 newfs.c References: <20011015124636.I29828-100000@wonky.feral.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I was thinking more in regards to the partition bewing newfs'd, not so much the size of the drive containing the partition. There are a lot of standard partitions that typically run less then a gig... '/', for example. Not that I think it matters a great deal. I don't think people would really notice any significant loss of disk space if we just changed the newfs default to 16K/2K for everything, at least for real hard drives. The 1-gig test would also help with newfs'ing non-hard drives like solid state storage, small mfs partitions (as peter brought up), and so forth. I think it's reasonable. -Matt : : :There is a substantial amount of drives out there stil that are < 1GB. :Also, consider floppy && SANdisk types of devices. : : :On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: :... :> is this 1GB limit really accurate ? :> do you know any todays drives lower than 4GB ? :> :> Cyrille. :> -- :> Cyrille Lefevre mailto:clefevre@citeweb.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message