From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 7 15:14:28 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 7 15:14:26 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail3.aracnet.com (mail3.aracnet.com [216.99.193.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8725D37B401 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:14:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell1.aracnet.com (shell1.aracnet.com [216.99.193.21]) by mail3.aracnet.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eB7N7qY30823; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:07:52 -0800 Received: by shell1.aracnet.com (8.9.3) id PAA20351; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:07:49 -0800 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:07:49 -0800 (PST) From: Darren Pilgrim To: Matt Dillon Cc: Warner Losh , Poul-Henning Kamp , A G F Keahan , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Optimal UFS parameters In-Reply-To: <200012072056.eB7Ku3112378@earth.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG This is a interesting topic (to me, anyway), and is one of the things that often gets overlooked by those of us with less experience. Rather than getting into a long discussion about modifying the newfs defaults across the board, what if the newfs options used were based on the size of the FS? There could be a simple rule in sysinstall that increased the newfs options from their default values if the defaults meant there would be more an x number of inodes and cg's. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message