Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 16:15:36 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> To: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> Cc: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Subject: Re: Using a larger block size on large filesystems Message-ID: <32520.1007734536@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Dec 2001 13:44:36 GMT." <4.3.2.7.2.20011207134031.00bbfc40@gid.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 13:44:36 GMT, Bob Bishop wrote: > >The only other thing I can think of is what obrien suggested. He told > >me that it might be that people are wary of a filesystem that contains > >only a single cylinder group, as this means you only have one > >superblock. > > > >Is this really something to worry about? [etc] > > Depends how good you are at patching superblocks. Getting the main > superblock trashed by power or harware hiccups is not that uncommon. Okay, in that case, the threshold needs to be 196MB, from which size upward we're guaranteed of at least one backup superblock. I'll get cracking on making the new defaults size-sensitive and post back my modified patchset when I'm done. Ciao, Sheldon. 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?32520.1007734536>