From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Dec 28 18:55:52 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dastardly.newsbastards.org.72.27.172.IN-addr.ARPA.NetScum.dyndns.dk (pop-mu-4-1-dialup-128.freesurf.ch [194.230.134.128]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E663D37B41A for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 18:55:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from beerswilling.netscum.dyndns.dk (dcf77-zeit.netscum.dyndns.dk [172.27.72.27]) by dastardly.newsbastards.org.72.27.172.IN-addr.ARPA.NetScum.dyndns.dk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBT2c0100757 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified FAIL) for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:38:00 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from bounce@dcf77-zeit.netscum.dyndns.dk) Received: (from root@localhost) by beerswilling.netscum.dyndns.dk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fBT2c0B00756; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:38:00 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from bounce@dcf77-zeit.netscum.dyndns.dk) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:38:00 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200112290238.fBT2c0B00756@beerswilling.netscum.dyndns.dk> From: BOUWSMA Beery To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: newfs and the -b/-f default values Organization: Men not wearing any pants that dont shave X-Hacked: via telnet to your port 25, what else? X-Internet-Access-Provided-By: TDC Suisse AG, Rumlang X-NetScum: Yes X-One-And-Only-Real-True-Fluffy: No Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [replies sent directly to me may timeout and bounce, since I'm not online as often as I should be, but I'll check the list archives] Far out This concerns both -stable and -current, I think. The man pages for `newfs' as of a few days ago refer to default values for the block and frag sizes that nowadays are different from what they traditionally have been. Woo, I said. So a couple days ago I decided to re-newfs some of the partitions I have, since I learned that even with background fsck'ing, an 80GB disk created with the old defaults takes a loooong time. And as far as I could see, from the disklabel and dumpfs and stuff, the partitions had been created with the traditional -b 8192 -f 1024 defaults. I did this to one partition under -current, but was surprised to see that the number of inodes was no different than before. Then I remembered another man page that I cannot now find, made mention that the root partition was required to be created with the old default values. Hmmm, I said. Okay... So I just now went back into -current and used `newfs -N' with different parameters, and as far as I could see, in fact, the new defaults of -b 16384 -f 2048 that the man pages referred to several times were not in effect. So I went ahead and newfs'ed the thing, explicitly specifying what were supposed to be the defaults, and lo and behold, the new filesystem was in fact different, as I wanted it to be. I haven't done this with -stable yet. I wonder, though, since the warning message printed by `mount_mfs' has changed to now be the value for the new defaults, rather than for the old defaults it had been earlier, I suspect that in the last few days, the defaults in -stable really do match the man pages. Let me wipe a partition and see... No, again it seems to be the same, but then why do I get the warning from mount_mfs Warning: Block size and bytes per inode restrict cylinders per group to 94. that more matches the warning for the new default values? bash-2.05a# newfs -N /dev/ad0s2f Warning: Block size and bytes per inode restrict cylinders per group to 22. bash-2.05a# newfs -N -b 16384 -f 2048 /dev/ad0s2f Warning: Block size restricts cylinders per group to 94. Now I'm confused. So, is there a good reason why the -stable and -current man pages for newfs do not seem to match the reality of what the program does? Is the limitation of the root partition to -b 8192 -f 1024 still in effect? (Sorry if this has already been answered, but I'm disturbed that the man pages seem to be wrong. Very disturbed.) Just wondering... thanks barry bouwsma To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message