Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:02:03 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@inet.ssc.nsu.ru> Cc: fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Block vs. frag sizes in newfs Message-ID: <20001129190203.T8051@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10011300837260.1684-100000@inet.ssc.nsu.ru>; from danfe@inet.ssc.nsu.ru on Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:42:56AM %2B0600 References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10011300837260.1684-100000@inet.ssc.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@inet.ssc.nsu.ru> [001129 18:43] wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Sorry for x-posting: I've heard somewhere that not too many ppl actually
> read fs...
>
> AFAIR, there was a conversation going on concerning ${SUBJ}. I remember
> some thougths that -b = -f is sort of optimum, things like that...
> Or, why 8192/1024 are installation defaults?..
>
> What it the truth behind all this? I'm intereted in any opinion.
Sour grapes from people whos fs can't deal with frags. :)
Yes, people read fs@, no need to cross post.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001129190203.T8051>