That's because any "consensus" would be inappropriate for mass consumtion.
It really depends on a lot of fun things like the average file size and the
number of files that the drives will be storing. For example, a mail server
might want more inodes than a database server. The mail server will likely
have a lot of tiny files where the database server would have a collection
of much larger (a few k vs several mb's each).
What makes you think the defaults are unreasonable? I set up a 300GB
filesystem a few months ago. I ran a few numbers, calculated my average file
size, compared it to the defaults and found they were very close to
reasonable. When I get a couple hundred gig's of data on there I'll know
better but I think my guess-timates are very good.
Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A G F Keahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 7:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Optimal UFS parameters
>
> What parameters should I choose for a large (say, 60 or 80Gb)
> filesystem? I remember a while ago someone (phk?) conducted a survey,
> but nothing seems to have come of it. In the meantime, the capacity of
> an average hard drive has increased tenfold, and the defaults have
> become even less reasonable.
>
> What's the current consensus of opinion?
>
> newfs -b ????? -f ????? -c ?????
>
> Thanks
>
> Alex Keahan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
