From owner-cvs-all Sun Aug 22 4: 2:48 1999 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674DF154F1; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 03:54:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA02771; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 12:52:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Doug Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/release/sysinstall install.c label.c options.csysinstall.h In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 21 Aug 1999 18:12:41 PDT." <37BF4E89.D3CD53C2@gorean.org> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 12:52:32 +0200 Message-ID: <2769.935319152@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk In message <37BF4E89.D3CD53C2@gorean.org>, Doug writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> The default is still "-b 8192 -f 1024" but my experiments show that >> "-b 16384 -f 4096 -c 100" is a more sensible value for modern >> disksizes. > > I'm curious, why is making the block size bigger a better thing? I would >think that with disks getting bigger all the time we'd want to decrease the >block size to avoid the wastage of unused partial blocks being multiplied >over very large disks. This is a legitimate request for info, I'm not an fs >expert by any means. The short answer is performance. But it is rather complicated really. I suggest you read the mail-archive for the fs@ list where this has been discussed recently. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message