Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!axion!delluk!tim From: tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: Why do you want a 512 byte block file system anyway? Message-ID: Date: 29 Nov 90 09:58:48 GMT References: <1990Nov18.182135.17954@scuzzy.in-berlin.de> <1990Nov19.232124.7802@cichlid.com> <158@raysnec.UUCP> Sender: usenet@delluk.uucp (Usenet posting login) Organization: Dell Computer Corp., Bracknell, UK Lines: 27 In <158@raysnec.UUCP> shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes: >tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) writes: >>Reduced waste of space due to wasting on average 1/4K in the last block >>instead of 1/2K. ... > While the 1/4K figure might appear to be intuitive, running fsanalyze >on my small ISC 2.2 system showed waste due to unfilled blocks to be less >than 4% for root, 7% for /usr and /usr2. I'd done a few spot checks some >time back to validate these figures, and they seemed to be on target. >Assuming these figures are anywhere near the actual, the performance boost >from a 1K block file system makes for a clear win. Agreed, but a news partition is not a normal filesystem !! As has been pointed out, a significant space saving can be achieved by using a smaller blocksize. Having said that I'm still not sure I'd bother. Anybody have any comments on using 'ufs' (BSD FFS) on a news partition. Is it possible to make it use say 4K blocks and 1/2K frags even if this is not the default ? Inquiring minds want to know ! Tim -- Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp. (UK) | Email address Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1RW | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk Tel: +44-344-860456 | Uucp: ...!ukc!delluk!tim "What's the problem? You've got an IQ of six thousand, haven't you?"