In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Optimal UFS parameters A G F Keahan
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Alfred Perlstein
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Matt Dillon
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Jordan Hubbard
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Alfred Perlstein
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Alfred Perlstein
- Re: Optimal UFS paramet... Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Matt Dillon
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Warner Losh
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Matt Dillon
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Dan Nelson
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Darren Pilgrim
- RE: Optimal UFS parameters Matt Simerson
- Re: RE: Optimal UFS parameters Matt Dillon
- Re: Optimal UFS parameters Christian Weisgerber

