From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 6 04:49:26 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE48E37B401 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 04:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx02.egartech.com (aloha.egartech.com [62.118.81.133]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 19EF043F75 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 04:49:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from temik@egartech.com) Received: (qmail 3682 invoked by uid 85); 6 May 2003 11:49:19 -0000 Received: from temik@egartech.com by mx02.egartech.com with qmail-scanner-1.03 (. Clean. Processed in 0.343934 secs); 06 May 2003 11:49:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO turtle.egar.egartech.com) (192.168.8.4) by 0 with SMTP; 6 May 2003 11:49:18 -0000 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 15:49:21 +0400 Message-ID: <5235EF9BAE6B7F4CB3735789EEF73B2907425F@turtle.egar.egartech.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: FFS and minfree... Thread-Index: AcMTN9uIDlgnnifCRmCTNuXFofnaKQAizvpw From: "Artem Tepponen" To: Subject: RE: FFS and minfree... X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 11:49:27 -0000 > From: Charles Swiger [mailto:cswiger@mac.com] > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 10:47 PM > > Should they be asking 'Why FS design is so flawed > > that it has this [minfree] requirement' instead? >=20 > No. Good answer. Explains everything. > > Is there any working FS for FreeBSD that does not have this=20 > > requirement? >=20 > The FFS doesn't have a requirement that you reserve any free space,=20 > although doing so is a reasonable default for most=20 > circumstances due to the performance advantages. Were those defaults reasonable when disks were small and files usually were in 100k range? I suspect many of my files are a bit larger. More precise question: will I lose anything performance wise if I'll drop minfree to 0% and partition where this happens contains primarily files in 5Mb+ range? > Do you enjoy having to defragment other filesystem types, by=20 > any chance? Background defragmenter/cleaner/whatever running at 3am actually wouldn't bother me too much. But I do enjoy having a few gigs more. There is no such thing as too much storage. Artem