Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:16:30 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs newfs.8 Message-ID: <20001219171630.A84990@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200012192155.eBJLt8n75030@freefall.freebsd.org>; from imp@FreeBSD.org on Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 01:55:08PM -0800 References: <200012192155.eBJLt8n75030@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 01:55:08PM -0800, Warner Losh wrote:
> Log:
> o Add an example for a large file system.
> Not Objected to by: hackers, doc
I can't find this on hackers, so I have to ask directly.
PHK suggested `newfs -b 16384 -f 4096 -c 100' a while back.
Rod Grimes reported:
I seemed to have run into some problems with some stuff that did not
like these and ended up deploying at the standard 8192/1024 -u 4096
due to them, so not a lot of testing occured.
I think a few commits have been made since then to fix larger than 8K
block file systems, so perhaps a more complete test with bug reports
is due....
Peter reported:
Incidently, I found that using a frag to block ration != 8 was a
certain killer for a news filesystem. ie: 8k/1k worked beautifully,
and so did 4k/ 0.5k. If I did 4k/1k or 8k/2k, the system would badly
trash the file system by corrupting the block allocation bitmaps
within 2 or 3 days of running at full load. I was never able to
track this down though as it was only occurring on a live system that
I wasn't allowed to go back to 4k:1k for debugging once it was
working. The 4:1 ratio of 16k/4k rings alarm bells to me..
My question is how tested are these new officially suggested values, and
how does the above comments apply today.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001219171630.A84990>