Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 00:30:04 +0200 From: "Richard Noorlandt" <lists.freebsd@gmail.com> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tunefs question Message-ID: <99c92b5f0706081530t454ed9cfp4f95b9afd19e7ed5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070607164116.GA95991@keira.kiwi-computer.com> References: <99c92b5f0706070804p42da0881kfc866b192be60ed5@mail.gmail.com> <20070607164116.GA95991@keira.kiwi-computer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks for the reactions. They cleared up quite a bit, and my conclusion is that tweaking the FS isn't a very good idea. They're defaults for a reason, although I still have some doubts about the appropriateness of the defaults for large filesystems. Large filesystems don't seem to be very well supported at the moment. I hope (and believe) ZFS will settle this. It sounds promising :-) Unfortunately I don't think it's stable enough at the moment. 2007/6/7, Rick C. Petty <rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com>: > > > If you know the precise files (i.e. total number of files + number of > directories --> number of inodes, average filesize --> inode density), > this > helps you speeze more space without sacrificing anything. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. How do you exactly determine the number of inodes needed? And when you change the number of inodes at filesystem creation, what effect will it have when you run growfs later on? Will it expand the filesystem with an equal inode density, or is it expanded with the default density? Regards, Richard
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?99c92b5f0706081530t454ed9cfp4f95b9afd19e7ed5>