Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:56:10 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: A G F Keahan <ak@freenet.co.uk>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Optimal UFS parameters Message-ID: <20001207005610.M16205@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <59514.976179131@critter>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 09:52:11AM %2B0100 References: <20001207003100.J16205@fw.wintelcom.net> <59514.976179131@critter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> [001207 00:52] wrote: > In message <20001207003100.J16205@fw.wintelcom.net>, Alfred Perlstein writes: > > >I'd do it, but I don't really have a grasp on the optimal parameters > >to set based on FS size. > > So far I don't see any indication here (or elsewhere) that anybody > has that grasp. > > I guess that is really a testimony to FFS/UFS's qualites... > > The main thing is that you significantly reduce your fsck time if > you reduce the number of inodes. Oh, your tunables just reduce the number of inodes? That may come as a suprise to people that are using the larger disks to store images and web/ftp stuff. I guess we ought to leave it alone, maybe if I have the time I'll see about popping up a dialog to ask if they'd like to make the inode/fsck tradeoff. But since Kirk is getting close with his snapshot work it might really not be necessary. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001207005610.M16205>