Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:48:00 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs newfs.8 Message-ID: <20011208104800.A1696@monorchid.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <3C10F171.FEE996EB@FreeBSD.org> References: <200111271953.fARJrFc88452@freefall.freebsd.org> <3C10F171.FEE996EB@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, 7 December 2001 at 18:42:25 +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Sheldon Hearn wrote: >> >> sheldonh 2001/11/27 11:53:15 PST >> >> Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_4) >> sbin/newfs newfs.8 >> Log: >> MFC: rev 1.44 - 1.46: >> >> Following on from 1.26.2.11, reintroduce the now corrected example >> for using larger block/frag sizes and explain that 8:1 is the optimal >> block/frag ratio. > > This is very questionable topic, at least from the space efficience > POV. For example, I found that on my development system using 16:2 > (5-CURRENT, /usr/ports + /usr/src) some 300MB are wasted in fragments > compared with the same partition formatted with 8:1. I would suggest > to extend this para explaining that 16:2 could result in a huge space > wastage when there are large number of small files on the fs (such as > /usr/ports or /usr/src) and 8:1 is better suited for such cases. I think you're misunderstanding. We're talking about a ratio here, not a size. 16:2 is the same ratio as 8:1. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011208104800.A1696>