heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock
rwatson at FreeBSD.org
Fri Jun 9 16:28:08 UTC 2006
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > No reason I can think of to use UFS1, but that doesn't mean there isn't a
> > bug lurking in UFS1.
> If he doesn't need UFS2 features, using UFS1 will save some space, because
> inode data is smaller in UFS1 (128 vs. 256 bytes per inode). However, that
> really doesn't matter much if he reduces the inode density as I recommended.
> On a 300 GB file system using the default newfs parameters, you have about
> 36 million inodes. So using UFS1 will save about 4500 MB of space (vs.
> UFS2). However, with an inode density of 2^18 there are only 1 million
> inodes, so UFS1 makes only a difference of 136 MB.
Ah, I took "A few very large files" to mean "A few very large files that are
probably too large for UFS1 to represent, as very large is getting very large
lately" :-). Switching to UFS1 under those circumstances would be
Robert N M Watson
More information about the freebsd-fs