Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:47:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Cyrille Lefevre <clefevre@citeweb.net> Cc: Ollivier Robert <roberto@ns2.freenix.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs newfs.8 newfs.c Message-ID: <20011015124636.I29828-100000@wonky.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <200110151945.f9FJj4D27624@gits.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
There is a substantial amount of drives out there stil that are < 1GB. Also, consider floppy && SANdisk types of devices. On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > Ollivier Robert wrote: > > According to Peter Wemm: > > > Personally, I'm worried about using 16k/2k on anything less than a large (say > > > larger than 1G) file system. > > > > Well, all my machines use 16k/2k for all filesystems now and I've never got > > any problem with that. It wastes a bit more space since fragments are now > > twice as big but that's about it. > > > > > If we made the defaults adjust to the fs size, I think that would be nice. > > > (ie: default to max -c possible, and switch to 16k/2k for "big" fs's) > > > > Like 8k/1k for <1GB and 16k/2k for >1GB ? Can be done I think. I'll have a > > look at that but bde has probably already written that patch years ago :-) > > is this 1GB limit really accurate ? > do you know any todays drives lower than 4GB ? > > Cyrille. > -- > Cyrille Lefevre mailto:clefevre@citeweb.net > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011015124636.I29828-100000>