Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:51:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock Message-ID: <200606091451.k59EpQnt039643@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <4489694F.1050503@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> wrote: > He should also use UFS2, and disable softupdates (if he really doesn't > want them). He already mentioned that he didn't enable soft-updates. > No reason I can think of to use UFS1, but that doesn't mean > there isn't a bug lurking in UFS1. If he doesn't need UFS2 features, using UFS1 will save some space, because inode data is smaller in UFS1 (128 vs. 256 bytes per inode). However, that really doesn't matter much if he reduces the inode density as I recommended. On a 300 GB file system using the default newfs parameters, you have about 36 million inodes. So using UFS1 will save about 4500 MB of space (vs. UFS2). However, with an inode density of 2^18 there are only 1 million inodes, so UFS1 makes only a difference of 136 MB. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "To this day, many C programmers believe that 'strong typing' just means pounding extra hard on the keyboard." -- Peter van der Linden
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200606091451.k59EpQnt039643>