Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
No, I don't think there's much point in doing that before Kirk
McKusick removes the restrictions on the soft updates code. When that
happens, we can make soft updates non-optional and turn on soft
updates on all file systems by default.
I hope *that* doesn't
jo...@gnu.org (Joel Ray Holveck) writes:
As we all know, tunefs -o space will hurt write performance. Will it
hurt read performance? If I don't care about install-time speed, but
do care about run-time speed and free space, should I populate my
filesystems at install time with space
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 12:03:54AM -0500, Joel Ray Holveck wrote:
How do people like to set up their filesystems these days? I've heard
of people who like one big fs (not generally usable anymore because of
the 1024 cyl limit), others who like the small root fs and one big fs
for everything
Joel Ray Holveck jo...@gnu.org writes:
About five minutes ago, I realized that one problem is that I recently
installed a new disk, and forgot to enable softupdates on it (doh!).
From the little I know, I don't quite understand why softupdates is a
tunefs parameter, instead of a mount flag.
On 29 May 1999 at 0:03, Joel Ray Holveck jo...@gnu.org wrote:
[snip]
How do people like to set up their filesystems these days? I've heard
of people who like one big fs (not generally usable anymore because of
the 1024 cyl limit), others who like the small root fs and one big fs
for
You might try unmounting the filesystem and doing
tunefs -o space /dev/rawdevice
(which can also be done at newfs time). You may find that the
performance, especially write performance, isn't too good.
I've been looking over FS performance tuning, trying to get my
compiles to go a bit
On 29 May 1999, Joel Ray Holveck wrote:
You might try unmounting the filesystem and doing
tunefs -o space /dev/rawdevice
(which can also be done at newfs time). You may find that the
performance, especially write performance, isn't too good.
I've been looking over FS performance
7 matches
Mail list logo
