From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 30 15:09:20 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78AF216A41B for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:09:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3865D13C480 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:09:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD112096; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:09:13 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: AWL X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: 0.0/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on tim.des.no Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D407A2094; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:09:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id ACF9184483; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:09:12 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Juri Mianovich References: <113837.11318.qm@web45609.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:09:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: <113837.11318.qm@web45609.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> (Juri Mianovich's message of "Thu\, 30 Aug 2007 07\:31\:28 -0700 \(PDT\)") Message-ID: <868x7tys87.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: forcing a permanent "time" optimization with tunefs ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:09:20 -0000 Juri Mianovich writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav writes: > > Juri Mianovich writes: > > > But let's pretend I know better ... and I really do want to optimize > > > it for time - is there any way to force a permanent optimization for > > > "time" ? > > Sure, raise minfree back to 8%. > Thanks - very helpful of you. You're welcome. > Your annoying, useless answer aside, for the sake of the archives I > will note that 6% is the magic number, below which the kernel will not > respect your switch to "time" optimization, but at which it will. Yes, this is documented in tunefs(8). > You will still receive a warning: > > tunefs: should optimize for space with minfree < 8% You really don't get it, do you? The time optimizations which you so dearly wish to hold on to are based on assumptions about the amount of free space available. The purpose of minfree is (partly) to ensure that those assumptions hold. When you reduce minfree (or the disk fills up anyway because of a runaway cron job or whatever), the file system must switch to a different set of optimizations. BTW, explain this: if you don't care about conserving space, why did you lower minfree in the first place? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no