From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 7 0:52:22 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 7 00:52:20 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (flutter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3AE137B400 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:52:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eB78qBL59516; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:52:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: A G F Keahan , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Optimal UFS parameters In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:31:00 PST." <20001207003100.J16205@fw.wintelcom.net> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 09:52:11 +0100 Message-ID: <59514.976179131@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20001207003100.J16205@fw.wintelcom.net>, Alfred Perlstein writes: >I'd do it, but I don't really have a grasp on the optimal parameters >to set based on FS size. So far I don't see any indication here (or elsewhere) that anybody has that grasp. I guess that is really a testimony to FFS/UFS's qualites... The main thing is that you significantly reduce your fsck time if you reduce the number of inodes. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message