From owner-freebsd-chat  Sat Jan 26 16:11:34 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D90B37B400
	for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:11:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pool0083.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.83] helo=mindspring.com)
	by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 16Ucuj-0003Nr-00; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:11:17 -0800
Message-ID: <3C5345A0.68D0CE99@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:11:12 -0800
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony}  (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Cc: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net>,
	Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1012390758.50933b@mired.org>,
	chip <chip@wiegand.org>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Bad disk partitioning policies (was: "Re: FreeBSD Intaller(was  "Re: 
 ... RedHat ...")")
References: <20020123124025.A60889@HAL9000.wox.org>
	 <3C4F5BEE.294FDCF5@mindspring.com> <20020123223104.SM01952@there>
	 <p0510122eb875d9456cf4@[10.0.1.3]>
	 <15440.35155.637495.417404@guru.mired.org>
	 <p0510123fb876493753e0@[10.0.1.3]>
	 <15440.53202.747536.126815@guru.mired.org>
	 <p05101242b876db6cd5d7@[10.0.1.3]>
	 <15441.17382.77737.291074@guru.mired.org>
	 <p05101245b8771d04e19b@[10.0.1.3]> <20020125212742.C75216@over-yonder.net> <p05101203b8788a930767@[10.0.1.14]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-chat.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-chat>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-chat>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Brad Knowles wrote:
> >           Size doesn't matter; percentage does.  I've heard somewhere
> >  (from Terry, I think) that 15% is the 'optimal' setting for this, and
> >  10% was a compromise that wasn't too far below optimal, but gave that 5%
> >  of extra available space.  8% is the current default in newfs(8).
> 
>         I disagree.  Size does matter.  The fragmentation-avoidance
> algorithms should still work at the sector/block/cylinder level, but
> the total disk space available is now many, many, many, many orders
> of magnitude larger than when these algorithms were first created.
> 
>         On modern high-capacity disks, 1% should be way more than you
> could ever need, in terms of what is required by the
> fragmentation-avoidance algorithms.  Now, there may be other reasons
> why you might want to allocate more than 1% to this reserved disk
> space, including the reasons I've previously mentioned.

85% hash fill is 85% hash fill.

If you have an arbitrary sized hash table, then why do you
somehow think the probability of a hash collision goes down
as the size of the hash table goes up, if the relative load
on the hash table increases until it is the same percentage
of the total hash table size?

Please search for "perfect hash" in the NEC "Cite Seer" CS
reference database.

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message