You really don't want to fart with these values. Performance will drop off the cliff.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:11:55PM +0000, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:46:06 +0200 > Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > > In general, the default values and algorithms for allocations could > > > probably do with a tune-up, since of course today's disks are several > > > magnitudes larger than only a few years ago (let alone than those that > > > were around when the bulk of the file system code was written!), and the > > > usage patterns are also in my experience often wildly different in a > > > large file system than in a smaller one. > > > > We do that already, inode density will be lower for newly created > > partitions, because diskalbel sets larger block and fragment sizes. > > When creating filesystems with a partition containing many small files > like one containing Maildirs. Is it a good idea during installation to > set frag-size in disklabel to 1024 in order to automatically increase > the number of inodes as oppose to simply using newfs -i 4096? Or would > it reduce performance for larger files unnecessarily. > > I was also expecting -g avgfilesize flag to affect the number of inodes > but it doesn't and it is useable with tunefs. Would anyone mind > telling me what affect it has? > > Thanks, > > Kc
