On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 08:39:26PM +0100, Paul Schenkeveld wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 02:21:26PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > OpenBSD by default use UFS1 for partitions smaller than 1TB.
> >
> > FreeBSD use always UFS2. UFS2 uses double the amount of space for inodes.
> > basic operati
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 09:29:27PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >
> > I don't think performance will be much different but if so, UFS1 would
> > be (sightly) faster than UFS2 because one page read will get more inodes
> > from disk and 32 bit (UFS1) arithmetic may be slightly faster than 64 bit
I don't think performance will be much different but if so, UFS1 would
be (sightly) faster than UFS2 because one page read will get more inodes
from disk and 32 bit (UFS1) arithmetic may be slightly faster than 64 bit
(UFS2).
thanks for answer i was looking for! i will rebuild FS to UFS1, savin
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 08:42:27PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > It makes perfect sense to use UFS1 on systems where space savings matter
> > unless your application requires any of the new features that are not
> > present in UFS1.
> >
> > Nanobsd(8) for example uses UFS1 by default too.
> tha
It makes perfect sense to use UFS1 on systems where space savings matter
unless your application requires any of the new features that are not
present in UFS1.
Nanobsd(8) for example uses UFS1 by default too.
thank you for answering. i don't need any new extra features, just plain
filesystem on
i chose with newfs as i don't use installer :)
anyway - it is not an answer to the question.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012, Quentin SCHWERKOLT wrote:
Since FreeBSD 9.0, you can choose between UFS1 and UFS2 in bsdinstall(8) when
creating a new freebsd-ufs partition.
Q. Schwerkolt
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 20
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 02:21:26PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> OpenBSD by default use UFS1 for partitions smaller than 1TB.
>
> FreeBSD use always UFS2. UFS2 uses double the amount of space for inodes.
> basic operation seems the same.
>
> Does it make sense to use UFS1 for small filesystem
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:18:37 +
Chris Rees wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2012 12:58, "Wojciech Puchar"
> wrote:
> >
> > do ports have to be updated this way or i can use portsnap as
> > today? will
> portsnap be continued or is too deprecated?
>
> Portsnap is staying.
And I understand that freebsd-upda
Since FreeBSD 9.0, you can choose between UFS1 and UFS2 in bsdinstall(8) when
creating a new freebsd-ufs partition.
Q. Schwerkolt
> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:21:26 +0100
> From: woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
> Subject: UFS1 vs UFS2
>
> OpenBSD by default use U
OpenBSD by default use UFS1 for partitions smaller than 1TB.
FreeBSD use always UFS2. UFS2 uses double the amount of space for inodes.
basic operation seems the same.
Does it make sense to use UFS1 for small filesystem (on SSD) that would
have few millions of files. It will take less space fo
On 30 Dec 2012 12:58, "Wojciech Puchar"
wrote:
>
> do ports have to be updated this way or i can use portsnap as today? will
portsnap be continued or is too deprecated?
Portsnap is staying.
Chris
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://list
do ports have to be updated this way or i can use portsnap as today? will
portsnap be continued or is too deprecated?
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
Just a reminder that this re-roll will happen in almost two weeks.
Thanks to a couple of volunteers, I now have independent confirmation
that the process is deterministic and repeatable and the switch can
progress as planned.
Regards,
Uli
On Sat, 2012-12-15 at 14:22:46 +0100, Ulrich Spörlein wro
Hello,
I'd like to display info about the currently running jails on my system by
using jail_get().
The code of the program can be found here:
* https://gist.github.com/4411851
Everything works, except for cases when a jail has multiple IP addresses
assigned to it. In that case the JID is never
14 matches
Mail list logo
