From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Dec 6 19:52:51 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 6 19:52:50 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from hightemplar.com (alex.telmap.com [192.116.157.233]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA9437B401 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 19:52:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from freenet.co.uk (alex@hightemplar.com [127.0.0.1]) by hightemplar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eB73qW022214; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 05:52:41 +0200 (IST) (envelope-from ak@freenet.co.uk) Sender: alex@hightemplar.com Message-ID: <3A2F097F.15D592DD@freenet.co.uk> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:52:31 +0200 From: A G F Keahan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Optimal UFS parameters Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG What parameters should I choose for a large (say, 60 or 80Gb) filesystem? I remember a while ago someone (phk?) conducted a survey, but nothing seems to have come of it. In the meantime, the capacity of an average hard drive has increased tenfold, and the defaults have become even less reasonable. What's the current consensus of opinion? newfs -b ????? -f ????? -c ????? Thanks Alex Keahan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message