From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Nov 23 16:50:48 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FEDD7DE
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:50:48 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com)
Received: from mail.r-bonomi.com (mx-out.r-bonomi.com [204.87.227.120])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B138FC12
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:50:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (from bonomi@localhost)
 by mail.r-bonomi.com (8.14.4/rdb1) id qANGpkOH041098;
 Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:51:46 -0600 (CST)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:51:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
Message-Id: <201211231651.qANGpkOH041098@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, ipluta@wp.pl
Subject: Re: newfs -m for large filesystem
In-Reply-To: <50AF95DB.9000502@wp.pl>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:50:48 -0000

> From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org  Fri Nov 23 09:31:00 2012
> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:27:23 +0100
> From: Ireneusz Pluta <ipluta@wp.pl>
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: newfs -m for large filesystem
>
> Hello,
>
> are the remarks given for the -m option in tunefs(8) and newfs(8) still 
> the same for very large filesystems, or the free-space margin might be 
> safely reduced in these cases?
>
> For instance, when I have a 12TB filesystem then the default 8% margin 
> gets close to the value of 1TB, which seems like a waste of capacity.

the tunefs remarks do apply.  especially the threshold for space vs. time
optimization.

That said, there is nothing detrimental to reducing minfee to 5%