From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 9 19:44:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3198D16A4CE for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:44:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pcwin002.win.tue.nl (pcwin002.win.tue.nl [131.155.71.72]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9AFA43D2F for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:44:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from stijn@pcwin002.win.tue.nl) Received: from pcwin002.win.tue.nl (orb_rules@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pcwin002.win.tue.nl (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i59Jidni016972; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:44:39 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stijn@pcwin002.win.tue.nl) Received: (from stijn@localhost) by pcwin002.win.tue.nl (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i59JidYw016971; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:44:39 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stijn) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:44:39 +0200 From: Stijn Hoop To: Scott Message-ID: <20040609194439.GD11712@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> Mail-Followup-To: Stijn Hoop , Scott , Jerry McAllister , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <200406091845.i59Ij8Y12090@clunix.cl.msu.edu> <200469142140.786530@IBM-R40> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="neYutvxvOLaeuPCA" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200469142140.786530@IBM-R40> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Bright-Idea: Let's abolish HTML mail! cc: Jerry McAllister cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Improper shutdown of system / Fragmentation Problems / Boot X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:44:55 -0000 --neYutvxvOLaeuPCA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:21:40PM -0500, Scott wrote: > As a newbie to FreeBSD, I may be way off base, but it seems=20 > very logical to me that the size of your drive or partition=20 > would make a difference on at what percentage full one would=20 > start to notice problems. >=20 > In terms of megs/gigs 80% of 120 gigs still has a lot of=20 > work space left. 80% of 4 gigs is not much. I would think=20 > with a larger drive/partition, one could run at a higher=20 > percentage before trouble started. >=20 > It makes sense to me anyway :) That's what one would like, but UFS doesn't work that way. It's allocation algorithm assumes 10% of the disk is free -- regardless of actual size. Or = so I've been told (multiple times). IMHO this is a bit ridiculous -- I mean, given 1 TB of space (nearly feasib= le for a home server right now), why would an FS allocator need 10% of that if the files on the volume are averaging 10 MB? But then again, and this is worth noting -- I'm certainly nowhere near as clueful as others on how to design a stable & fast file system. Seeing as UFS1 is still in use, and has been for the last 20 years (think about it!),= I think maybe the tradeoff might make sense to an expert... BTW, note that you really need to consider the perfomance drop for yourself -- like others said, if the files on the volume change infrequently, performance matters little, and space more so. --Stijn --=20 This sentence contradicts itself -- no actually it doesn't. -- Hofstadter --neYutvxvOLaeuPCA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAx2inY3r/tLQmfWcRAgG5AJ4/v0XKg/OFj+8VtWc1TEy1zKAtLgCgpa7n 24QCEWJQpf2pU7Gqlpzxum4= =+qsU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --neYutvxvOLaeuPCA--