Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:18:40 +0200 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Large disks (was Re: bin/19635: add -c for grand total to df(1)) Message-ID: <20000706131840.B58747@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <v04220803b58a161b72db@[195.238.1.121]>; from blk@skynet.be on Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 12:58:27PM %2B0200 References: <16565.962880093@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> <v04220803b58a161b72db@[195.238.1.121]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 12:58:27PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote: [whole discussion about df -h output snipped] > You're ignoring the fact that "Size" is the total physical size > of the device, while "Used", "Avail", and "Capacity" take into > account the 10% (or whatever) overhead that is typically left > unallocated for performance reasons. Maybe this isn't the right list to ask, but stepping into this: I bought a 30G drive recently, and I was wondering if the 10% 'rule' for performance is still really needed. I mean, I lose 3 _gigs_ of storage space, and otherwise the performance detoriates? That doesn't make sense to me. I am running now with reserved set to 2% (on my /home, not on smaller / & /usr of course) and haven't noticed anything of performance loss; of course I haven't managed to fill that ~27G in the short time I have this setup ;) Which also leads me to the question: is it desirable, given those large disks, to have a finer grain of control over reserved space, for example setting reserved space to 2.5% or whatever? Or can this be done already? In the hopes that someone can enlighten me... --Stijn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000706131840.B58747>