Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:01:56 -0500
From:      Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>
To:        "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc:        cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs newfs.8 newfs.c
Message-ID:  <20011014220155.A64887@dan.emsphone.com>
In-Reply-To: <20011014194232.A50125@dragon.nuxi.com>
References:  <200110110851.f9B8ptf60343@freefall.freebsd.org> <20011011112527.A54224@coffee.q9media.com> <20011011154203.C44561@dragon.nuxi.com> <20011013143225.B4527@ns2.freenix.org> <20011013172706.A53976@dragon.nuxi.com> <20011014160303.A22301@ns2.freenix.org> <20011014194232.A50125@dragon.nuxi.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Oct 14), David O'Brien said:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 04:03:03PM +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> > Speaking of changing that value, shouldn't we also change the
> > default block and fragment values ?
> > 
> > It has been said in the lists many times that 16k/2k is more
> > efficient (and I'm using it myself by defautl now).
> 
> There has been rumored problems if you use something other than
> 8k/1k. This is probably something that should run thru -arch or
> -hackers before doing it.  "-c" was a no-brainer as noone has ever
> argued that a low "-c" was prefered (that I've seen).

For what it's worth, I've been running 8 100gb filesystems at 16/2
since 1997 with no problems, with OSes from 2.2.5->2.2.8 and later,
4.0->4.4.  One of them holds a copy of the FreeBSD CVS tree that gets
cvsupped nightly, and the others hold files up to 40gb.  I've seen no
filesystem problems that couldn't be traced to bad hardware.
 
-- 
	Dan Nelson
	dnelson@allantgroup.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011014220155.A64887>