On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 06:18:53AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> You should make that mem patch available to reduce fsck surprises.
yes, but I have to tweak it first. Currently it does not take into
account the (expected) number of dirs. It just takes ndirs, which is
pretty low for a new fs ;-)
-Otto
>
> On Jan 5, 2010, at 0:14, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 10:28:28PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
> >
> >>Hi.
> >>
> >>What are the recommended newfs tweaks for an FS that will store
> >>mostly
> >>large or very large files? Are defaults sufficient for optimum
> >>performance, or are they mostly a general case for typical OS small
> >>program/text files? Also my guess tweaking with tunefs is useless,
> >>since it's a very old tool? I tried tunefs with larger values than
> >>default, but that makes the kernel either freeze or panic :D
> >>
> >>Thanks.
> >
> >It will work with defaults, but you can use -f and -b to increase
> >fragment and block sizes to a max of 65536. That will save space on
> >metadata and make fsck_ffs faster and use less memory.
> >
> > -Otto
