Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 20:10:05 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: clefevre@citeweb.net Cc: Ollivier Robert <roberto@ns2.freenix.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: <20011016031005.717A03803@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200110151945.f9FJj4D27624@gits.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 ?
It's nothing to do with "drives". It is a partition thing. eg: a 50Meg root
fs or /tmp or something.
Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
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?20011016031005.717A03803>