From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 31 10:49:37 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA11498 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 10:49:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from zap.io.org (root@zap.io.org [198.133.36.81]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA11493 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 10:49:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (taob@localhost) by zap.io.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA05198 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 13:49:15 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: zap.io.org: taob owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 13:49:15 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Tao To: FREEBSD-HACKERS-L Subject: Lowering minfree to 1% on large disks Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I know the tunefs man page contains warnings about lowering the minfree threshold on a disk to below 5%, but besides file write performance, is there any other reason *not* to drop it down to 1 or 2 percent? The specific application is with FTP filesystems. I have a couple of 4GB disks for our mirror archives and I wouldn't mind recovering the 300MB or so on each drive. Yeah, disk is cheap, but it still seems like a waste to me. Since the only writes occuring on those drives come from the mirror process, I figure network performance will always be the bottleneck rather than disk writes. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob@io.org) System and Network Administrator, Internex Online Inc. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"