So it sounds like there would be some benefit in tar'ing and untarring /usr/local, /usr/ports, /usr/src, etc. which will be less disruptive...
Thanks! - Mike H. X-Authentication-Warning: cwsys.cwsent.com: smtpd set sender to <cy@cwsys> using -f Reply-To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Sender: schubert Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 08:49:47 -0700 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-SpamBouncer: 1.4 (8/24/01) X-SBClass: OK In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Harding writes: > > Um - what about my question? Is the newfs necessary? Repartitioning, > backup, and restore also require a backup medium, etc. The more of your filesystem that has had its files allocated using the new dirpref, the greater the benefit. There was a comment made earlier in another thread on another list (see archives) that the new dirpref has the risk of greater fragmentation. There were no responses to the comment. I'm not sure whether this is just a concern someone had or whether the risk is real. The fact that there were no replies to that comment seems to indicate we just don't know yet. In some OpenBSD mailing list archives (search Google) there were comments about dirpref + softupdates being 60x faster than UFS without the two features. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/Alpha Team Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Systems Group, ITSD Ministry of Management Services Province of BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
